[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

[Lodewijk]

I am not sure if this is about the same thing. I read Alec's questions as
being about content projects that want to affiliate themselves with
Wikimedia - want to become the new Wikimedia project. I know that in the
past this question has lived for example with OmegaWiki/WiktionaryZ . SJ,
would you consider this to be similar to Wikimedian groups who want to have
a slightly more formal relationship with the Movement?

Lodewijk

2011/7/13 Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com>

> We're discussing setting up an "Affiliation committee" to oversee
> simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations.  These
> could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge --
> requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm
> they are in line with our basic principles.  [1]
>
> Wikimedia Associations could be individual wikiprojects, clubs, or
> meetups run by one or more people that want to establish a lasting
> identity as part of the movement.
>
> Third-party wikis and larger groups could be Wikimedia Affiliates.
>
> Both could use web-badges and icons to identify them with the movement
> (derived from the WM community logo?).
>
> SJ
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/New_group_models
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
> >
> > ;1--  A roadmap towards affiliation
> >
> > How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
> > of' Wikimedia?
> >
> > One easy step they could take would be to simply  say, on their
> > website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
> > Movement".   (alternate text welcome )
> >
> > Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as
> > "part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the
> > foundation or both.
> >
> > Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that
> > share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to
> > them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across
> > WMF projects).  We could permit access to the unified login, we could
> > allow template-sharing or image-sharing.  We could set up
> > interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions.
> >
> > Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us.   We could
> > get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares
> > our values.  The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if
> > someone else hadn't already built it.   Their userbases and readership
> > would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it
> > would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement,
> > very big, very diverse, and very special.
> >
> > ; 2--   We need a name for self-identified project affiliation.
> >
> > External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative,
> > that they are "part of" something.    That something should be a
> > something that is connected to us.
> >
> > But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is
> > new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't
> > approve of.
> >
> > I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological
> > affiliation to WM.   I think my own project's values match the
> > Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway.
> >
> > Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a
> > "part of"?
> >
> > We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of
> > the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to
> > reserve just for officially recognized projects.   If so, what name
> > should such projects use instead?
> >
> > Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like
> > Wikipedia, here's a link".  They need to be _identifying_ their own
> > efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do.   They need to be
> > "investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt
> > to help share the world's information".
> >
> > Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want
> > and like-minded projects would use it if prompted.   We just have to
> > be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like.   We will
> > no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend
> > projects use for self-identified affiliation.
> >
> > So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are
> > "part of", if they want to express a connection to us?
> >
> > Alec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>