michael west said:
A board seat for a representative of indigenous non English speakers would Ipresume only represent a member of the Celtic language speakers. The facts are that non-indigenous people who contribute to the WMF who speak languagesat home or in prayer outweigh those whose languages are official languages of the UK. It just seems bizarre.
The reason why I think Wikimedia UK should focus more on, say, Sottish Gaelic with its 50,000 speakers than, say German, with its 500,000 speakers in the UK, is that we already have a German chapter which can promote German language projects. We are the only chapter which could ever promote Scottish Gaelic, and, as I said before, we may be able to unlock public funds in order to do so. I don't remotely agree that this is racist.
There is clearly a danger that Wikimedia UK will end up just being Wikipedia London; recognising the diversity of UK Wikimedians - across projects, languages and the constituent countries, would I think be a positive step.
My suggestion of 2 had in mind a board of around seven. Of course it would be fewer if there were fewer board seats.
From: Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 November, 2008 0:40:35 Subject: Re: Election Rules (non-english speakers)
Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently to the election of the interim Board?
I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding minority languages.
Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc.
As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which could be used by us to support these projects.
The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK.
What do you think?
What advantage is there to requiring minority languages to be represented on the board? I would be very surprised if that were required to obtain funds to support minority languages (although obviously we would need a way to carry out that support...). As and when we have members who speak minority languages, and if they want to be on the board, why should they not go through the standard process? What would we do if we did have reserved seats but no-one to fill them?
I can understand positive bias to counteract a negative one, but I don't agree with it - either way, it's still a bias.
Also, we are far from being a Wikipedia/Wikimedia London at present, and I would be very surprised if we ever turned into that.
Mike
On 29 Nov 2008, at 21:54, Andrew Turvey wrote:
michael west said:
A board seat for a representative of indigenous non English
speakers would I presume only represent a member of the Celtic language speakers. The facts are that non-indigenous people who contribute to the WMF who speak languages at home or in prayer outweigh those whose languages are official languages of the UK. It just seems bizarre.
The reason why I think Wikimedia UK should focus more on, say, Sottish Gaelic with its 50,000 speakers than, say German, with its 500,000 speakers in the UK, is that we already have a German chapter which can promote German language projects. We are the only chapter which could ever promote Scottish Gaelic, and, as I said before, we may be able to unlock public funds in order to do so. I don't remotely agree that this is racist.
There is clearly a danger that Wikimedia UK will end up just being Wikipedia London; recognising the diversity of UK Wikimedians - across projects, languages and the constituent countries, would I think be a positive step.
My suggestion of 2 had in mind a board of around seven. Of course it would be fewer if there were fewer board seats.
From: Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 November, 2008 0:40:35 Subject: Re: Election Rules (non-english speakers)
Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently to the election of the interim Board?
I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding minority languages.
Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc.
As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which could be used by us to support these projects.
The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK.
What do you think?
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/11/29 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
What advantage is there to requiring minority languages to be represented on the board? I would be very surprised if that were required to obtain funds to support minority languages (although obviously we would need a way to carry out that support...). As and when we have members who speak minority languages, and if they want to be on the board, why should they not go through the standard process? What would we do if we did have reserved seats but no-one to fill them?
I can understand positive bias to counteract a negative one, but I don't agree with it - either way, it's still a bias.
Also, we are far from being a Wikipedia/Wikimedia London at present, and I would be very surprised if we ever turned into that.
I would tend to agree. I think the other options for supporting minority groups are better. But, by all means, propose a motion for the AGM and we can vote on it.
I am very interested to see the discussion on the representation of minority languages. The last board meeting agreed a text to go out to Wikimedia projects in other languages used in the UK (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Languages) and I have now started making contact (initially with minority languages native to the UK, but I also plan to contact projects in other languages widely used in the UK.
With luck, we will receive some interest and be able to open a discussion with participants in these projects on what sort of relationship they would like with Wikimedia UK, and what formal structures, if any, we should be looking at putting in place.
Best Wishes Mickey Conn
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
What advantage is there to requiring minority languages to be represented on the board? I would be very surprised if that were required to obtain funds to support minority languages (although obviously we would need a way to carry out that support...). As and when we have members who speak minority languages, and if they want to be on the board, why should they not go through the standard process? What would we do if we did have reserved seats but no-one to fill them?
I can understand positive bias to counteract a negative one, but I don't agree with it - either way, it's still a bias.
Also, we are far from being a Wikipedia/Wikimedia London at present, and I would be very surprised if we ever turned into that.
Mike
On 29 Nov 2008, at 21:54, Andrew Turvey wrote:
michael west said:
A board seat for a representative of indigenous non English
speakers would I presume only represent a member of the Celtic language speakers. The facts are that non-indigenous people who contribute to the WMF who speak languages at home or in prayer outweigh those whose languages are official languages of the UK. It just seems bizarre.
The reason why I think Wikimedia UK should focus more on, say, Sottish Gaelic with its 50,000 speakers than, say German, with its 500,000 speakers in the UK, is that we already have a German chapter which can promote German language projects. We are the only chapter which could ever promote Scottish Gaelic, and, as I said before, we may be able to unlock public funds in order to do so. I don't remotely agree that this is racist.
There is clearly a danger that Wikimedia UK will end up just being Wikipedia London; recognising the diversity of UK Wikimedians - across projects, languages and the constituent countries, would I think be a positive step.
My suggestion of 2 had in mind a board of around seven. Of course it would be fewer if there were fewer board seats.
From: Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 November, 2008 0:40:35 Subject: Re: Election Rules (non-english speakers)
Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently to the election of the interim Board?
I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding minority languages.
Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc.
As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which could be used by us to support these projects.
The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK.
What do you think?
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On 11/29/08, Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
michael west said:
A board seat for a representative of indigenous non English speakers would Ipresume only represent a member of the Celtic language speakers. The facts are that non-indigenous people who contribute to the WMF who speak languagesat home or in prayer outweigh those whose languages are official languages of the UK. It just seems bizarre.
The reason why I think Wikimedia UK should focus more on, say, Sottish Gaelic with its 50,000 speakers than, say German, with its 500,000 speakers in the UK, is that we already have a German chapter which can promote German language projects.
Here, here. I'm not saying that you should turn away or 'forward' German-speaking UK residents, for obviously if I move to the UK (which is not altogether unlikely and depends on 3*20 minutes in mid-december), I'd join and participate in the UK chapter as well, it being not viable to go to Switzerland for many chapter events/projects.
However, it is unreasonable for the UK chapter to publish, say, leaflets about Wikipedia in German, there being three chapters who can and should do this. Same for French, Italian etc.
Michael
We are the only chapter which could ever promote Scottish Gaelic, and, as I said before, we may be able to unlock public funds in order to do so. I don't remotely agree that this is racist.
There is clearly a danger that Wikimedia UK will end up just being Wikipedia London; recognising the diversity of UK Wikimedians - across projects, languages and the constituent countries, would I think be a positive step.
My suggestion of 2 had in mind a board of around seven. Of course it would be fewer if there were fewer board seats.
From: Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 November, 2008 0:40:35 Subject: Re: Election Rules (non-english speakers)
Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently to the election of the interim Board?
I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding minority languages.
Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc.
As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which could be used by us to support these projects.
The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK.
What do you think?
On 11/29/08, mbimmler@gmail.com mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/08, Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
michael west said:
A board seat for a representative of indigenous non English speakers would Ipresume only represent a member of the Celtic language speakers. The facts are that non-indigenous people who contribute to the WMF who speak languagesat home or in prayer outweigh those whose languages are official languages of the UK. It just seems bizarre.
The reason why I think Wikimedia UK should focus more on, say, Sottish Gaelic with its 50,000 speakers than, say German, with its 500,000 speakers in the UK, is that we already have a German chapter which can promote German language projects.
Here, here.
This *was* iphone's auto spelling correct. Really. Or so I hope. Ouch.
I'm not saying that you should turn away or 'forward' German-speaking UK residents, for obviously if I move to the UK (which is not altogether unlikely and depends on 3*20 minutes in mid-december), I'd join and participate in the UK chapter as well, it being not viable to go to Switzerland for many chapter events/projects.
However, it is unreasonable for the UK chapter to publish, say, leaflets about Wikipedia in German, there being three chapters who can and should do this. Same for French, Italian etc.
Michael
We are the only chapter which could ever promote Scottish Gaelic, and, as I said before, we may be able to unlock public funds in order to do so. I don't remotely agree that this is racist.
There is clearly a danger that Wikimedia UK will end up just being Wikipedia London; recognising the diversity of UK Wikimedians - across projects, languages and the constituent countries, would I think be a positive step.
My suggestion of 2 had in mind a board of around seven. Of course it would be fewer if there were fewer board seats.
From: Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 November, 2008 0:40:35 Subject: Re: Election Rules (non-english speakers)
Q5: Is there any way that you think the election should be run differently to the election of the interim Board?
I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding minority languages.
Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc.
As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which could be used by us to support these projects.
The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK.
What do you think?
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here, here.
This *was* iphone's auto spelling correct. Really. Or so I hope. Ouch.
I'm not buying it, "hear" has been in every dictionary I've ever seen! ;)
See, that shows that you don't use an iPhone. While it has many nice features, it does have the tendency to replace correct words either by other correct words (as here) or, even worse and at least when writing in German, it replaces correct words with completely unintelligible babble.
So I uphold my non-guilty plea, but maybe this is getting a bit off-topic...
Michael
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org