[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Kirill Lokshin
Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
[1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania
and across the region.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Philip Kopetzky
Hi Kirill,

what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
reconising even more user groups from the same area?

Best,
Philip

On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania
> and across the region.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Mardetanha-2
​ Hi Kirill

  Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
very same question.



Mardetanha

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
> of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
> simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
> reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>
> Best,
> Philip
>
> On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania
> > and across the region.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> Group_Albania
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi Kirill,

I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.

Best,

Paulo

2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:

> ​ Hi Kirill
>
>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
> very same question.
>
>
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kirill,
> >
> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> recognized
> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
> Group.
> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
> Albania
> > > and across the region.
> > >
> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> > Group_Albania
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Affiliates mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Philip Kopetzky
Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
left to deal with the fallout of this decision.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
> possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>
> Best,
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:
>
>> ​ Hi Kirill
>>
>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>> very same question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mardetanha
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kirill,
>> >
>> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>> Wikimedians
>> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Philip
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone!
>> > >
>> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>> recognized
>> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
>> Group.
>> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>> other
>> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>> Albania
>> > > and across the region.
>> > >
>> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Kirill Lokshin
>> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>> > Group_Albania
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Affiliates mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

80hnhtv4agou--- via Wikimedia-l
 I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country.

It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a  previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning.

What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national chapters.
I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field.
IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea.

Alessandro
   Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <[hidden email]> ha scritto:  
 
 Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
left to deal with the fallout of this decision.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
> possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>
> Best,
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:
>
>> ​ Hi Kirill
>>
>>  Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>> very same question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mardetanha
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kirill,
>> >
>> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>> Wikimedians
>> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Philip
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone!
>> > >
>> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>> recognized
>> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
>> Group.
>> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>> other
>> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>> Albania
>> > > and across the region.
>> > >
>> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Kirill Lokshin
>> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>> > Group_Albania
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Affiliates mailing list
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin
We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the Russian Federation & we welcome this.

1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group (WUG TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered Wikimedia User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific language focus.

I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given less than a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy Prime-Minister and Regional President. I will have to craft value proposition statements & roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented first in my Republic, then across Russia.

farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" <[hidden email]>:

>  I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country.
>
> It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a  previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning.
>
> What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national chapters.
> I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field.
> IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea.
>
> Alessandro
>    Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>  Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
> left to deal with the fallout of this decision.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Kirill,
>>
>>  I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
>>  followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
>>  possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Paulo
>>
>>  2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>>  ​ Hi Kirill
>>>
>>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>>>  very same question.
>>>
>>>  Mardetanha
>>>
>>>  On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>>>  [hidden email]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Hi Kirill,
>>>  >
>>>  > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>>>  Wikimedians
>>>  > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>>>  > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>>>  > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>>>  >
>>>  > Best,
>>>  > Philip
>>>  >
>>>  > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > > Hi everyone!
>>>  > >
>>>  > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>>>  recognized
>>>  > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
>>>  Group.
>>>  > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
>>>  > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>>>  other
>>>  > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>>>  Albania
>>>  > > and across the region.
>>>  > >
>>>  > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>>>  > >
>>>  > > Regards,
>>>  > > Kirill Lokshin
>>>  > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>>  > >
>>>  > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>>>  > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>>>  > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>>>  > Group_Albania
>>>  > >
>>>  > > _______________________________________________
>>>  > > Affiliates mailing list
>>>  > > [hidden email]
>>>  > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>>  > >
>>>  > >
>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>  > 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: [hidden email]
>>>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>  > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Affiliates mailing list
>>  [hidden email]
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

camelia boban
Hello everyone, sorry on my delayed answer.

I respond in the name of AffCom as inside the group it is one of the tasks
assigned to me.

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. And it
suggests, but does not decide affiliation.

In the specific case of Albania, the objectives purpose of the first UG
(Wikimedia Community User Group Albania) in that specific moment was the
Albanian language (which is spoken not only in Albania, but also in Kosovo,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, Turkey, Italy) and activities especially
related to Wiki Loves Monuments, diversity and Wikidata, OSCAL and Software
Freedom Kosova. In the case instead of the second UG (Wikimedia Community
User Group Albania) the purpose was Outreach, GLAM and education,
everything focused territorially on Albania.
So no scope overlap, no territory overlap. Furthermore, the two groups had
always actively collaborated together until that point.

We followed the rules/models we actually have and these are the right
motivations for which AffCom has suggested at that time the recognition of
the second group. If instead we want to discuss about find/suggest
different models of affiliation or chage the existent, this must be a
separate conversation.

Thank you.

Camelia & Sami,
on behalf of AffCom


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee Treasurer - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545
[hidden email]
*Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *Twitter
<https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
<https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
<https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
*WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122>  **|* *Aissa
Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>









Il giorno ven 8 feb 2019 alle ore 19:22 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad
Fatkullin <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the
> Russian Federation & we welcome this.
>
> 1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group
> (WUG TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
> 2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered
> Wikimedia User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific
> language focus.
>
> I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During
> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given less
> than a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy
> Prime-Minister and Regional President. I will have to craft value
> proposition statements & roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented
> first in my Republic, then across Russia.
>
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
>
> 06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" <
> [hidden email]>:
> >  I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo,
> Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe
> even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a
> state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially,
> also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one
> country.
> >
> > It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not
> practical in the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a
> group that might become a future national chapter because their language is
> spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered
> in a  previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per
> se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and
> addressed since the beginning.
> >
> > What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to
> languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same
> problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or
> Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap
> UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on.
> They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in
> reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with
> other UGs or national chapters.
> > I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and
> I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I
> strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be
> implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia
> Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity
> competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which
> is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We
> call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local
> geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national
> chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations
> created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified
> by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized
> somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application
> to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field.
> > IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations
> (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or
> local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise
> administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however
> just a vague idea.
> >
> > Alessandro
> >    Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
> > left to deal with the fallout of this decision.
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  Hi Kirill,
> >>
> >>  I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> >>  followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
> >>  possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
> >>
> >>  Best,
> >>
> >>  Paulo
> >>
> >>  2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>>  ​ Hi Kirill
> >>>
> >>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had
> the
> >>>  very same question.
> >>>
> >>>  Mardetanha
> >>>
> >>>  On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
> >>>  [hidden email]>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  > Hi Kirill,
> >>>  >
> >>>  > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
> >>>  Wikimedians
> >>>  > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
> >>>  > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios
> by
> >>>  > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
> >>>  >
> >>>  > Best,
> >>>  > Philip
> >>>  >
> >>>  > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > > Hi everyone!
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> >>>  recognized
> >>>  > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
> >>>  Group.
> >>>  > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the
> Wikimedia
> >>>  > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
> >>>  other
> >>>  > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
> >>>  Albania
> >>>  > > and across the region.
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user
> group!
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > Regards,
> >>>  > > Kirill Lokshin
> >>>  > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> >>>  > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> >>>  > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> >>>  > Group_Albania
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > _______________________________________________
> >>>  > > Affiliates mailing list
> >>>  > > [hidden email]
> >>>  > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > _______________________________________________
> >>>  > 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: [hidden email]
> >>>  > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>>  > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> >>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Affiliates mailing list
> >>  [hidden email]
> >>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Philip Kopetzky
Hi Camelia,

thanks for the reply - was there any consultation of the first user group
before the decision was made? It should've been obvious from their reports
and grant applications (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Simple/Applications/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group/2018/H2
) that Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group‎  also has volunteers
and activities in Albania, especially in GLAM and Education, which you
attribute to the second group (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania).

The underlying problem here is that nobody feels responsible for our
current affiliate structure and others (especially the affiliates affected
by your decisions) are left to deal with the situation themselves. This is
definitely something the working group Roles & Responsibilities needs to
work on in order to have more friction-less affiliates model in the future.
This example right here is a good showcase of how an affiliation model
should not work.

I think it's pointless to blame anyone for this, I just hope we figure out
a better way in the future :-)

Best,
Philip


On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:18, camelia boban <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everyone, sorry on my delayed answer.
>
> I respond in the name of AffCom as inside the group it is one of the tasks
> assigned to me.
>
> 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. And it
> suggests, but does not decide affiliation.
>
> In the specific case of Albania, the objectives purpose of the first UG
> (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania) in that specific moment was the
> Albanian language (which is spoken not only in Albania, but also in Kosovo,
> Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, Turkey, Italy) and activities especially
> related to Wiki Loves Monuments, diversity and Wikidata, OSCAL and Software
> Freedom Kosova. In the case instead of the second UG (Wikimedia Community
> User Group Albania) the purpose was Outreach, GLAM and education,
> everything focused territorially on Albania.
> So no scope overlap, no territory overlap. Furthermore, the two groups had
> always actively collaborated together until that point.
>
> We followed the rules/models we actually have and these are the right
> motivations for which AffCom has suggested at that time the recognition of
> the second group. If instead we want to discuss about find/suggest
> different models of affiliation or chage the existent, this must be a
> separate conversation.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Camelia & Sami,
> on behalf of AffCom
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Developer |*
> *Affiliations Committee Treasurer - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group
> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> M. +39 3383385545
> [hidden email]
> *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> | *Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *Google Plu
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>s
> <https://plus.google.com/+CameliaBoban/>*
> *WikiDonne <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* *| **LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122>  **|* *Aissa
> Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno ven 8 feb 2019 alle ore 19:22 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad
> Fatkullin <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>> We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the
>> Russian Federation & we welcome this.
>>
>> 1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group
>> (WUG TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
>> 2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered
>> Wikimedia User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific
>> language focus.
>>
>> I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During
>> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given
>> less than a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy
>> Prime-Minister and Regional President. I will have to craft value
>> proposition statements & roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented
>> first in my Republic, then across Russia.
>>
>> farhad
>>
>> --
>> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
>> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>>
>>
>> 06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >  I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo,
>> Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe
>> even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a
>> state. This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially,
>> also Greece) since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one
>> country.
>> >
>> > It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not
>> practical in the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a
>> group that might become a future national chapter because their language is
>> spoken by many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered
>> in a  previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per
>> se, although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and
>> addressed since the beginning.
>> >
>> > What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to
>> languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same
>> problem with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or
>> Croatia, with a Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap
>> UG active in a language distributed along various borders... and so on.
>> They don't seem to show huge problems when similar situation exist in
>> reality but they could degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with
>> other UGs or national chapters.
>> > I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and
>> I think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I
>> strongly advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be
>> implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia
>> Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity
>> competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which
>> is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We
>> call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local
>> geographical unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national
>> chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations
>> created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified
>> by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized
>> somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction on the application
>> to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the field.
>> > IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations
>> (specifically for a language), cross-language thematic organization or
>> local UG centered on a vague historic geographical area or a very precise
>> administrative one. And think carefully about their status. This is however
>> just a vague idea.
>> >
>> > Alessandro
>> >    Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky <
>> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>> >
>> >  Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others
>> are
>> > left to deal with the fallout of this decision.
>> >
>> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>  Hi Kirill,
>> >>
>> >>  I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
>> >>  followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
>> >>  possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>> >>
>> >>  Best,
>> >>
>> >>  Paulo
>> >>
>> >>  2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha <[hidden email]>:
>> >>
>> >>>  ​ Hi Kirill
>> >>>
>> >>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I
>> had the
>> >>>  very same question.
>> >>>
>> >>>  Mardetanha
>> >>>
>> >>>  On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> >>>  [hidden email]>
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>  > Hi Kirill,
>> >>>  >
>> >>>  > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>> >>>  Wikimedians
>> >>>  > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>> >>>  > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios
>> by
>> >>>  > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>> >>>  >
>> >>>  > Best,
>> >>>  > Philip
>> >>>  >
>> >>>  > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin <[hidden email]>
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>  >
>> >>>  > > Hi everyone!
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>> >>>  recognized
>> >>>  > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia
>> User
>> >>>  Group.
>> >>>  > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the
>> Wikimedia
>> >>>  > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>> >>>  other
>> >>>  > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>> >>>  Albania
>> >>>  > > and across the region.
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user
>> group!
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > > Regards,
>> >>>  > > Kirill Lokshin
>> >>>  > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> >>>  > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>> >>>  > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>> >>>  > Group_Albania
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > > _______________________________________________
>> >>>  > > Affiliates mailing list
>> >>>  > > [hidden email]
>> >>>  > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > >
>> >>>  > _______________________________________________
>> >>>  > 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: [hidden email]
>> >>>  > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >>>  > <mailto:[hidden email]
>> ?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: [hidden email]
>> >>>  Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> >>  _______________________________________________
>> >>  Affiliates mailing list
>> >>  [hidden email]
>> >>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by camelia boban
Hello,

camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Kiril Simeonovski
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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin
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_User_Group 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_Group & 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" <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>>  camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Kiril Simeonovski
Hi Farkhad,

The troubles arise when there are multiple user groups whose activities are
aimed at primarily promoting the Wikimedia projects on one language or/and
they are centred on the same geographic area. This would not be a problem
for culturally and linguistically diverse countries with significant share
of the world's total population like Russia or India but it definitely
invites problems in small, mostly European, countries where it is not the
case. So, my opposition is not on having multiple user groups in one
country or large grographic area that abounds in cultural and linguistic
diversity but on doing it in areas that have the opposite. This would
translate into something like having multiple user groups on promoting only
the Tatar or Bashkir Wikipedia with overlapping scopes because the
Affiliations Committee failed to contact the existing affiliates on
resolving why the co-existence of additional ones with almost identical
scope is needed before making the cut and recognise them.

Best,
Kiril



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:59 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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_User_Group
> 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_Group
> & 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" <[hidden email]>:
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello,
> >>
> >>  camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>  <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin
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 <[hidden email]> 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_User_Group
> 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_Group
> & 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" <[hidden email]>:
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello,
> >>
> >>  camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>  <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin
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" <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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_User_Group
>>  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_Group
>>  & 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" <[hidden email]>:
>>  > 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 <
>>  > [hidden email]> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> Hello,
>>  >>
>>  >> camelia boban <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>  >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  >> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>