Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

sensory overload/wikimedia events

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia...

Kirill Lokshin

22 May 2018 22 May '18

11:07 p.m.

Hi everyone! I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania and across the region. Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group! Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognit… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania

Show replies by date

Philip Kopetzky

23 May 23 May

1:42 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Kirill, what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by reconising even more user groups from the same area? Best, Philip On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi everyone! I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania and across the region. Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group! Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

Mardetanha

11 Jun 11 Jun

3:07 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Kirill Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the very same question. Mardetanha On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi everyone! I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania and across the region. Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group! Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_

Group_Albania

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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>

Paulo Santos Perneta

12 Jun 12 Jun

9:23 a.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Kirill, I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer. Best, Paulo 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <mardetanha.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Hi Kirill Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the very same question. Mardetanha On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky < philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> wrote:

wrote:

> Hi everyone! > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has

recognized

> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User

Group.

> The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in

Albania

and across the region. Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group! Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_

Group_Albania

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

Philip Kopetzky

6 Feb 6 Feb

7:10 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are left to deal with the fallout of this decision. On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kirill, what's the difference/relationship between this group and the

Wikimedians

of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by reconising even more user groups from the same area? Best, Philip On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

> Hi everyone! > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has

recognized

> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User

Group.

> The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with

other

> Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in

Albania

Group_Albania

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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>

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

Alessandro Marchetti

8:01 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country. It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in the end by itself... You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning. What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national chapters. I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field. IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea. Alessandro Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are left to deal with the fallout of this decision. On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kirill, what's the difference/relationship between this group and the

Wikimedians

wrote:

> Hi everyone! > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has

recognized

> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User

Group.

> The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with

other

> Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in

Albania

Group_Albania

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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>

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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>

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin

8 Feb 8 Feb

8:21 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the Russian Federation & we welcome this. 1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group (WUG TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders. 2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered Wikimedia User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific language focus. I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given less than a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy Prime-Minister and Regional President. I will have to craft value proposition statements & roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented first in my Republic, then across Russia. farhad -- Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan 06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>: > I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country. > > It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in the end by itself... You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning. > > What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national chapters. > I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field. > IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea. > > Alessandro > Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > > Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are > left to deal with the fallout of this decision. > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Kirill, >> >> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having >> followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst >> possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer. >> >> Best, >> >> Paulo >> >> 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <mardetanha.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>: >> >>> Hi Kirill >>> >>> Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the >>> very same question. >>> >>> Mardetanha >>> >>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky < >>> philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Kirill, >>> > >>> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the >>> Wikimedians >>> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a >>> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by >>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area? >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Philip >>> > >>> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi everyone! >>> > > >>> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has >>> recognized >>> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User >>> Group. >>> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia >>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with >>> other >>> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in >>> Albania >>> > > and across the region. >>> > > >>> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group! >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Kirill Lokshin >>> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee >>> > > >>> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ >>> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania >>> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_ >>> > Group_Albania >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Affiliates mailing list >>> > > Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Affiliates mailing list >> Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates > > _______________________________________________ > 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>

camelia boban

12 Feb 12 Feb

1:18 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hello everyone, sorry on my delayed answer. I respond in the name of AffCom as inside the group it is one of the tasks assigned to me. 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. And it suggests, but does not decide affiliation. In the specific case of Albania, the objectives purpose of the first UG (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania) in that specific moment was the Albanian language (which is spoken not only in Albania, but also in Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, Turkey, Italy) and activities especially related to Wiki Loves Monuments, diversity and Wikidata, OSCAL and Software Freedom Kosova. In the case instead of the second UG (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania) the purpose was Outreach, GLAM and education, everything focused territorially on Albania. So no scope overlap, no territory overlap. Furthermore, the two groups had always actively collaborated together until that point. We followed the rules/models we actually have and these are the right motivations for which AffCom has suggested at that time the recognition of the second group. If instead we want to discuss about find/suggest different models of affiliation or chage the existent, this must be a separate conversation. Thank you. Camelia & Sami, on behalf of AffCom -- *Camelia Boban* *| Developer |* *Affiliations Committee Treasurer - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban(a)gmail.com *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *Twitter <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>* *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122> **|* *Aissa Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/> Il giorno ven 8 feb 2019 alle ore 19:22 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <frhd(a)yandex.com> ha scritto:

...

I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo,

Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country.

It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not

practical in the end by itself... You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning.

What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to

languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national chapters.

I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and

I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field.

IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations

(specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea.

Alessandro Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <

philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:

Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are left to deal with the fallout of this decision. On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <

paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > Hi Kirill, > > I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having > followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst > possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer. > > Best, > > Paulo > > 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <mardetanha.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>: > >> Hi Kirill >> >> Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had

the

>> very same question. >> >> Mardetanha >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky < >> philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Kirill, >> > >> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the >> Wikimedians >> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a >> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios

>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area? >> > >> > Best, >> > Philip >> > >> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi everyone! >> > > >> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has >> recognized >> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User >> Group. >> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the

Wikimedia

>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with >> other >> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in >> Albania >> > > and across the region. >> > > >> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user

group!

>> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Kirill Lokshin >> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee >> > > >> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ >> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania >> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_ >> > Group_Albania >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Affiliates mailing list >> > > Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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>

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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>

Philip Kopetzky

1:54 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Camelia, thanks for the reply - was there any consultation of the first user group before the decision was made? It should've been obvious from their reports and grant applications ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Simple/Applications/Wikimedians_of_A… ) that Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group‎ also has volunteers and activities in Albania, especially in GLAM and Education, which you attribute to the second group (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania). The underlying problem here is that nobody feels responsible for our current affiliate structure and others (especially the affiliates affected by your decisions) are left to deal with the situation themselves. This is definitely something the working group Roles & Responsibilities needs to work on in order to have more friction-less affiliates model in the future. This example right here is a good showcase of how an affiliation model should not work. I think it's pointless to blame anyone for this, I just hope we figure out a better way in the future :-) Best, Philip On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:18, camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo,

It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not

What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to

I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and

IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations

Alessandro Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <

philip.kopetzky(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:

Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others

are

left to deal with the fallout of this decision. On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <

paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>

had the

User

>> Group. >> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the

Wikimedia

group!

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>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

_______________________________________________ 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,

_______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

Paulo Santos Perneta

13 Feb 13 Feb

5:13 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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

Kiril Simeonovski

14 Feb 14 Feb

2:25 a.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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.

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin

15 Feb 15 Feb

12:59 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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>:

...

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

_______________________________________________ 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>

Kiril Simeonovski

1:31 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Farkhad, The troubles arise when there are multiple user groups whose activities are aimed at primarily promoting the Wikimedia projects on one language or/and they are centred on the same geographic area. This would not be a problem for culturally and linguistically diverse countries with significant share of the world's total population like Russia or India but it definitely invites problems in small, mostly European, countries where it is not the case. So, my opposition is not on having multiple user groups in one country or large grographic area that abounds in cultural and linguistic diversity but on doing it in areas that have the opposite. This would translate into something like having multiple user groups on promoting only the Tatar or Bashkir Wikipedia with overlapping scopes because the Affiliations Committee failed to contact the existing affiliates on resolving why the co-existence of additional ones with almost identical scope is needed before making the cut and recognise them. Best, Kiril On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:59 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin < frhd(a)yandex.com> wrote:

...

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,

Paulo Santos Perneta

4:36 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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:

...

Hi Paulo, Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly

the

Brazil's

number

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

12/02/2019

> à(s) 11:18: > > > (...) > > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom

has

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.

_______________________________________________ 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,

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin

8:30 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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 Paulo, Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly

the

Brazil's

number

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

12/02/2019

> à(s) 11:18: > > > (...) > > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom

has

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.

_______________________________________________ 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,

_______________________________________________ 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>

Greta Doçi

25 Feb 25 Feb

2:33 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

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:

...

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,

_______________________________________________ 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,

Paulo Santos Perneta

3:16 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Greta, Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this question. This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013 chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone UG (Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing for the same activities and partnerships. Hopefully this time AffCom will not have the reckless approach they had with Brazil, extinguishing both groups to try to solve a problem they created themselves, and our wikimedian friends from Albania and Albanian Language will be spared the destruction of their community. I believe that we, as the broad community, really should do something to prevent this kind of thing which is mining and destroying parts of the Wikimedia Movement. It is not possible that we have to stay here quietly seeing AffCom dealing with all those cases in such an incompetent and reckless way. If it's obviously not working, why keep it that way? Best, Paulo Greta Doçi <gretadoci(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia segunda, 25/02/2019 à(s) 12:34:

...

)

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 >: > >> > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>

Kiril Simeonovski

4:08 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Hi Greta, Thank you for the explanation. This reminds me a lot to what happened in Macedonia, albeit with different names of the recognised user groups. The artificially created problem by the Aff Com has eventually ended up in two user groups being eligible for WMF grants (another contentious decision), then a raising concern that the WMF can not extend funds to two user groups in a small country serving community with a small number of speakers and finally a substantial reduction of the annual grants approved for 2019 and threat that no grants will be extended for 2020 if the conflict does not get resolved. My kind advice for you is to start thinking about external funding for the next budget year (though it is not an easy task in our region) because this is something that the WMF might do for Albania as well. I also strongly agree with Paulo that we need to start thinking about preventing this from happening in the future. The problem is not only that people do not care about the consequences from their decisions in a volunteer community but that they just bagger off after complicating things and simply leave the issue to be solved by the volunteers who did not want it to happen. I was thinking about introducing a complaint process on Meta where people from the communities can directly complain about similar instances of problems created by the WMF, the Aff Com, the grantmaking committees or any other decision-making party. Frankly speaking, my impression is that the movement migrates from decisions about big things made through community-based discussions to a centralised decision-making process made entirely within the WMF or the committees that do not seem to serve all communities equally. Best, Kiril On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

)

(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

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.

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

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

> 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

> > 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

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>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

_______________________________________________ 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>

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin

26 Feb 26 Feb

8:43 p.m.

New subject: [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Dear colleagues, Cooperation with external entities is best organized through either national chapters or thematic organizations, which should be predominantly self-supporting, thus quasi-independent from WMF. I support Kiril's advice that WoALUG should be evolving towards a Wikimedia thematic organization, whilst our WCUGA colleagues in Albania should consider evolving towards a national chapter (thus stepping out of WoALUG's way in anything that has to do with ethnic language and culture matters). At the same time, emails below don't seem to provide good enough reasons to force transformation of a recognized UG into a national chapter or thematic organization before they are ready to make that leap, even if having these structures is very important for the ongoing sustainability of the movement. I am happy to see that our Thai colleagues seem to have reached this stage https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_p… UGs are a wonderful tool for greater engagement of volunteers, supporting their desire to take greater steps, so the trend for approving new UGs is probably there for good (every city, sub-region or sub-topic being eligible). Keeping the door open is important, just like the chance to fail and get de-recognized. May I remind you that harmony within the community of Wikimedia volunteers is more important than the destiny of whatever Wikimedia affiliate, whose main function is a shell that brings together and gives some recognized identity to local volunteers' that run own projects. regards, farhad -- Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan 25.02.2019, 17:09, "Kiril Simeonovski" <kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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

)

(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

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

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.

our

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,

requests

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 /

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

> 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_…

kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com

: >> > 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

also

> noted > >> > that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants

unlike

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

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

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

_______________________________________________ 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>

1880

days inactive

2160

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

18 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Alessandro Marchetti
camelia boban
Greta Doçi
Kiril Simeonovski
Kirill Lokshin
Mardetanha
Paulo Santos Perneta
Philip Kopetzky
Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin