We should get more actively into getting Wikimedia UK off the ground.
Once we're a UK charity, possible sources of income include the Arts Council (freedom of information about culture, innit), and the British Council (spreading British culture across the globe, as well as much the same reasoning as for the Arts Council - especially as current Chair is Kinnock, who will probably like the pro-proleteriat direction open content moves in ;-)), and others - thoughts?
As to personnel, I'm happy to take an active rôle in the UK Foundation; David has said that he'd rather take a more back-seat affair (non-exec. Board member, perhaps?); others?
Alison - what's the current status? Probably buried under real work deadlines, no doubt. :-) Anything I can do to help?
Yours,
James D. Forrester (james@jdforrester.org) [050613 04:22]:
As to personnel, I'm happy to take an active rôle in the UK Foundation; David has said that he'd rather take a more back-seat affair (non-exec. Board member, perhaps?); others?
That's because I know how good nonprofits are for taking 36 out of any 24 hours ;-) I know I'll get sucked deeper into it. Happens.
One VERY important thing is how to make it as clear as possible, under UK law, that "Wikimedia UK" has no control whatsoever over Wikimedia or over site content. Otherwise we will be a target for every crank, nutter and serial litigator in the country seeking to use the UK's appalling libel laws to their advantage. How to set it up so as to minimise even nuisance suits?
- d.
As to personnel, I'm happy to take an active rôle in the UK Foundation; David has said that he'd rather take a more back-seat affair (non-exec. Board member, perhaps?); others?
I definitely want to be involved but not in any high profile way, for two reasons - I'm not currently living in the UK, and I'm hoping to remain on the Board of the Foundation for the coming two years.
One VERY important thing is how to make it as clear as possible, under UK law, that "Wikimedia UK" has no control whatsoever over Wikimedia or over site content. Otherwise we will be a target for every crank, nutter and serial litigator in the country seeking to use the UK's appalling libel laws to their advantage.
Absolutely.
For those not following the progress of the other chapters, the French Wikipedia has had a little trouble recently related to the President of their chapter deleting an article following legal threats about it. This action was highly controversial, despite him feeling it was backed up by their chapter's bylaws. Their bylaws state that they are legally the representatives of the Foundation in France, and therefore they do have legal responsibility for the content. In hindsight, this is looking more and more like a bad idea, and I would strongly advise future chapters to avoid such clauses. Having the chapter separate from the actual projects is a much safer and simpler approach. This also goes for legal ownership of any hardware in the UK, and possibly even the UK domain names.
Angela.
Angela (beesley@gmail.com) [050613 06:48]:
For those not following the progress of the other chapters, the French Wikipedia has had a little trouble recently related to the President of their chapter deleting an article following legal threats about it. This action was highly controversial, despite him feeling it was backed up by their chapter's bylaws. Their bylaws state that they are legally the representatives of the Foundation in France, and therefore they do have legal responsibility for the content. In hindsight, this is looking more and more like a bad idea, and I would strongly advise future chapters to avoid such clauses. Having the chapter separate from the actual projects is a much safer and simpler approach. This also goes for legal ownership of any hardware in the UK, and possibly even the UK domain names.
How likely is a UK judge to decide this is legally bogus and that the UK foundation is just pretending not to be part of the US organisation, should a sufficiently rabid UK litigator show up? (I've just been researching [[Fair Game (Scientology)]], so excuse any paranoia ;-)
- d.
The DG asked ...
How likely is a UK judge to decide this is legally bogus and that the UK foundation is just pretending not to be part of the US organisation, should a sufficiently rabid UK litigator show up? (I've just been researching [[Fair Game (Scientology)]], so excuse any paranoia ;-)
after Angela pointed out that
Having the chapter separate from the actual projects is a much safer and simpler approach. This also goes for legal ownership of any hardware in the UK, and possibly even the UK domain names.
This is an issue I am having in trying to think of appropriate content for the Articles of Association. Rhetorically, what is the 'point' of Wiki UK.
It isn't to buy hardware (or rather if it is we need to retain ownership) It isn't to buy or create software (ditto and liaibility flowing therefore) It isn't to give it to a parent based in another country It isn't - specifically - to write articles (and if we could be said to have done so then the French example Angela pointed to would be bound to occur here, probably on a (scientology) article!) It might be to "promote" the various wikis under the parent umbrella, but arguably unless we are taking out major press advertisements that wouldn't seem to take up any cash we get in.
So exactly what are we trying to do. Suggestions on a postcard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H posting here please ...
Alison
On Monday, June 13, 2005, at 11:17, VampWillow wiki@vampwillow.com wrote:
Rhetorically, what is the 'point' of Wiki UK.
It isn't to buy hardware (or rather if it is we need to retain ownership)
What about contributing for the up-keep of caching servers in Europe; these are (apparently) legally more OK (not publishing, only forwarding as a sort of Common Carrier status body). Alternatively we could sponsor the Foundation's upkeep of the server computers in British languages (as well as en, also cy, kw, etc.), or help in the Foundation's advertising in the UK and EU generally (?)...
It isn't to buy or create software (ditto and liaibility flowing therefore)
Can we really not aide in funding development without being liable for the resultant product's end users' actions? Putting money towards the devs was one of the aims I thought we were going to attempt to move in. Also towards the sysadmins, of course, though that's more covered by the previous point.
It isn't to give it to a parent based in another country
Well, it is, just not exclusively. An idea was to have Wikimedia UK pay "chapter membership" fees to the Foundation of some not insignificant nominal level (a few thousand p.a., perhaps). Also, we could have (and help fund) joint-projects with our fellow European chapters, say to promote social learning and inter-cultural awareness (or something else both positive and good-sounding) in the EU. Yes, this is more overtly political than the Foundation does things, but we could be more pro-pedagogy than merely supplying, being more like a "pusher" than a "dealer", to use an unfortunate similie. :-)
It isn't - specifically - to write articles (and if we could be said to have done so then the French example Angela pointed to would be bound to occur here, probably on a (scientology) article!)
Indeed, though we could still rally for and encourage British cultural articles (and act as a base from which to make requests of British institutions on behalf of (agent/intermediary rather than sub-entity) the Foundation (e.g., asking for digital versions of paintings in the NPG for Commons, or databases of, say, British politics (lists of every Act, every S.I., etc.) which are difficult to come by, and where having a British organisation to our name can help convince people that we're not fly-by-night-ers.
It might be to "promote" the various wikis under the parent umbrella, but arguably unless we are taking out major press advertisements that wouldn't seem to take up any cash we get in.
Promotion doesn't have to be through media advertising; we could give talks at universities, work with librarians' organisations (though I've heard that some of them are rather anti-us, or something), etc.
So exactly what are we trying to do. Suggestions on a postcard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H posting here please ...
Hmm. Perhaps serving to an extent as a social community of volunteers to egg-on each other and otherwise encourage activity?
Other thoughts, anyone?
Alison
Yours,
Well, it is, just not exclusively. An idea was to have Wikimedia UK pay
"chapter membership" fees to the Foundation of some not insignificant nominal level (a few thousand p.a., perhaps). Also, we could have (and help fund) joint-projects with our fellow European chapters, say to promote social learning and inter-cultural awareness (or something else both positive and good-sounding) in the EU. Yes, this is more overtly political than the Foundation does things, but we could be more pro-pedagogy than merely supplying, being more like a "pusher" than a "dealer", to use an unfortunate similie. :-)
I very much want to have an active and participatory role in the chapter. However, being a student membership costs in the order of thousands p.a. is completely infeasable. Most students (who seem to be a considerable Wikidemographic) struggle to keep alive, so would also be excluded. Unless there were extreme concessions, this would not work.
Oldak.
On 14/06/05, Adam Jones kisssatansfeet@hotmail.com wrote:
I very much want to have an active and participatory role in the chapter. However, being a student membership costs in the order of thousands p.a. is completely infeasable. Most students (who seem to be a considerable Wikidemographic) struggle to keep alive, so would also be excluded. Unless there were extreme concessions, this would not work.
The idea being proposed, which I'm not entirely sure about yet, was that the chapter would pay 1000s to the Foundation in return for being a member of the Foundation, not that members of the chapter would ever pay anything like this.
The fees for members should probably be something similar to those for the French and German chapters, which are 35 € and 24 € per year respectively (approx £23 and £16), with discounts for those on low incomes.
Angela.
The fees for members should probably be something similar to those for the French and German chapters, which are 35 and 24 per year respectively (approx £23 and £16), with discounts for those on low incomes.
Ah, I see - this is certainly possible. To whom else would the chapter contribute, other than the foundation itself?
Also, what are the steps we have to take to becoming a charity - can we similtaneously form and register?
Oldak.
Also, what are the steps we have to take to becoming a charity - can we similtaneously form and register?
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_UK_charity_law and http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc21.asp#3
I think the first step should be to start working on the bylaws, and then see what needs to be included to ensure the chapter will be eligible for charitable status.
The Italian bylaws would be an excellent starting point. They've picked the best parts from the French and German bylaws, learning from the experiences those chapters have already had, and these were recently approved by the Foundation. There's an English version at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/bylaws#English_version
Angela.
Angela (beesley@gmail.com) [050615 05:48]:
The fees for members should probably be something similar to those for the French and German chapters, which are 35 ? and 24 ? per year respectively (approx £23 and £16), with discounts for those on low incomes.
Sounds plausible. Any concession reasonable ("you say you're a student/benefit recipient? we'll trust you"). And of course, once it gets deductible charity status, that's a good way to get cash coming in.
One important function will be minor British language support and encouragement. Welsh, Scots (there's a test wiki on meta:), the Gaelics, Cornish, even Anglo-Saxon ... the Welsh area will be a good one. Is Arwel Parry on this list? I've also been trying to recruit Scots enthusiasts I know for the Scots one, without much success as yet.
Then there might be support for British content in non-native languages commonly spoken in Britain. Does anyone know of a list of languages spoken in Britain with estimated number of speakers?
- d.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:57:11 +1000, David Gerard wrote
Then there might be support for British content in non-native languages commonly spoken in Britain. Does anyone know of a list of languages spoken in Britain with estimated number of speakers?
According to
http://www.cilt.org.uk/faqs/langspoken.htm
There isn't reliable/official data. They do have lists from various sources, though.
Rob
David Gerard wrote:
Does anyone know of a list of languages spoken in Britain with estimated number of speakers?
Surely that information must be on Wikipedia somewhere? Unfortunately, I can't seem to find conclusive information about the number of speakers of really minor lanugauges. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_Kingdom">This</a> (Wikipedia) has some information. I think that the number of speakers of sign-language won't be too useful when deciding which languages some articles can be translated into... oh well.
Also, what are the steps we have to take to becoming a charity - can
we similtaneously form and register?
The Charity's commision has a slightly long and drawn out process, but not one that will be beyond anyone here =P. Theoretically, I suppose that those things must be simlutaneous because a charity isn't a charity until it is registered. Angela's replied anyway ;) (just...)
Nat
The Charity's commision has a slightly long and drawn out process, but
not one that will be
beyond anyone here =P. Theoretically, I suppose that those things must be
simlutaneous
because a charity isn't a charity until it is registered. Angela's replied anyway ;) (just...)
Perhaps a better place to formulate our governing document, our bylaws, our territory, &c. would be on a website for the chapter. I understand James already has purchased suitable domains - a Wiki could be placed here. This would not be new - I believe the German wiki already has a website? Further, something tangible (however tangible a website may be) may be the catalyst necessary to kicking this project off the ground...
Oldak.
Perhaps a better place to formulate our governing document, our bylaws, our territory, &c. would be on a website for the chapter. I understand James already has purchased suitable domains - a Wiki could be placed here. This would not be new - I believe the German wiki already has a website? Further, something tangible (however tangible a website may be) may be the catalyst necessary to kicking this project off the ground...
I don't think there is yet anything which needs to be kept confidential, so it makes more sense to simply use Meta for this rather than needing yet another wiki to check on.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikim%C3%A9dia_France and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Deutschland show that these two chapters did at least start off using Meta for discussion and documentation. For the French chapter, the project namespace on the French Wikipedia was also used for a lot of this, but I wouldn't recommend that since it implies the chapter is focusing on a specific project and language rather than all Wikimedia projects in all the languages of the UK.
Angela.
On 13/06/05, VampWillow wiki@vampwillow.com wrote:
This is an issue I am having in trying to think of appropriate content for the Articles of Association. Rhetorically, what is the 'point' of Wiki UK.
I've just been reviewing the proposed Italian bylaws, and those state the purpose is:
"to contribute actively to the the diffusion, the improving, the advancement of the collective knowledge and culture in the world..."
From this, I think the diffusion of knowledge is something the UK
chapter can really focus on, along with promotion. You can distribute the content without needing to assert any legal ownership of it. There are certainly costs involved with publishing WikiReaders, which I think would be a great thing for the UK chapter to cover. Another idea, which we might be able to get funding for, is holding wiki tutorials in universities and libraries, with the aim of getting people writing on Wikipedia, and thereby contributing to the "advancement of the collective knowledge" mentioned in the Italian bylaws.
Angela
VampWillow wrote:
It might be to "promote" the various wikis under the parent umbrella, but arguably unless we are taking out major press advertisements that wouldn't seem to take up any cash we get in.
So exactly what are we trying to do. Suggestions on a postcard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H posting here please ...
I would say that the main aims should be:
1. Promotion of _the community_ in the UK, meaning, organizing/funding local conferences and meetings -- not just pub meetings, but real conferences which invite UK academics, overseas personages of some interest, etc.
2. Liasoning with the press -- people love to have titles, and the press loves to talk to people with titles. "James Forrester, some random guy off the Internet" is a fine title *for us*, but if you're talking to the press, they like a nice title like "James Forrester, Wikimedia UK Black Rod". (Please have such a title? For me? Pleeease? ;-))
3. Interfacing with Cultural Organizations With Money To Spend But Only If You Are Local.
This is an incomplete list.
As to owning hardware, I think it's an open question as to whether local associations should own a server for their own website or not. I generally think not, but that one seems optional.
I don't think it is a good strategy for us to have the hardware which runs Wikipedia/etc. owned by multiple organizations all over the world. There is some debate on this point, and so I don't regard my position as definitive, but it isn't something I see a pressing need for, at least.
--Jimbo
David Gerard wrote:
One VERY important thing is how to make it as clear as possible, under UK law, that "Wikimedia UK" has no control whatsoever over Wikimedia or over site content. Otherwise we will be a target for every crank, nutter and serial litigator in the country seeking to use the UK's appalling libel laws to their advantage. How to set it up so as to minimise even nuisance suits?
A valid question. :-)
With the German chapter this is set up quite nicely. They don't exactly have the same legal situation as the general UK libel laws, but they do get plenty of legal complaints.
Example: someone in Germany owns a trademark on the word "Memory". We have an article on that subject, but of course encyclopedia articles don't violate trademark law. Still, good sense has never stopped lawyers for long, and so they got a nice complaint about it.
We have a simple solution to this:
Complainant: "Stop doing this!" Wikimedia Deutschland: "We'd love to help you, but we're just an association of website users. Talk to Jimbo in the US." Jimbo in the US: "...get lost"
--Jimbo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org