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:
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:
> 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>