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

Wed Jul 13 19:04:02 UTC 2011

I'm open to negotiations, on behalf of Wikinfo, for the friendliest
possible cooperative relationship. However, the more relaxed editing
atmosphere, the exclusion of nasty editing behavior, and exploration of
alternate points of view are not negotiable.

Fred Bauder

> I had the same interpretation as Ziko.  Affiliate sites, in Alec's
> language, want to indicate they share Wikimedian ideals.
> Few such sites would want to become a Wikimedia-hosted project.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like
>> WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia:
>> "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."
>> Of course, WikiSomething can say on its website "We like Wikimedia and
>> share its goals", but the wording must not give the impression that
>> there is an official link between both.
>> The problem is that we don't want that anybody can decorate himself
>> with the Wikimedia trademark and maybe abuse it. There must be an
>> official recognition anyway from Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko van Dijk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2011/7/13 Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ziko van Dijk
>> The Netherlands
>> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>