Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle. I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that describes while it labels, e.g. Creative Commons. I'd like a better name than the free culture when referring to the broader sense of us. If we can come up with one, then win. Great observation and great reply. It _is_ putting the cart before the horse to pick a name before you start picking members. Logically you first assemble a group of Movement Sites, then invite their representatives to a discussion, and then collectively decide on a name. But, right now, we have the strategic advantage that since we're the ones organizing, we can pick the tentative name now and we can pick the sites invited in the first wave of invitations. That have been LOTS of free info sharing movements. What would make this one special? Basically, that it is intrinsically and clearly tied to the Global Wikimedia Commmunities and is an extension OF the Wikimedia values ON other sites. If we pick a name as generic as Open Knowledge, or if we invite potential members before we get a tentative name, then how will we communicate the idea of that the movement is centered around Wikimedia, its values, and its success? How will we ensure that the Wikimedia beyond WMF servers movement can be promoted and supported by the existing Wikimedia movement and its foundation. If we just start a new movement with no clear tie to the existing Wikimedia groups, think of a name is simple, but the resulting movement will be neither special nor new. We want other projects to, be able to have the exact same kind of relationship with our foundation that our existing projects enjoy, if all parties agree. That will still have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but that's the goal of forming a new movement-- to help the WMF identify, ally with, and cooperate with those projects that are part of its movement without being part of its serverfarm. Our foundation is something very one-of-a-kind. Nonprofit foundations are a dime a dozen, but OUR foundation is a group of non-profit professionals who have adapted themselves to interface with a large, diverse, global community-- and vice versa. A foundation run by an activist wiki community with the help of high-quality professionals-- I know of no other organization that has ever developed in quite this way, and it seems to be doing things that nobody else ever succeeded in doing. Free information movements aren't new-- what is new is Wikimedia. It's managed to keep a large, coherent community for a decade, it's managed to stabilizing and multiply our funding source, it provides high grade strategic support and leadership-- that's the special element. If an Unnamed Movement doesn't start off clearly tied to Wikimedia, the job isn't going to get any easier once we invite people who aren't currently even part of Wikimedia. If it's hard for us to decide what our name and our values are, it's only going to get more difficult after we invite people who are currently more tied to Mediawiki than Wikimedia. After all, we only want people who are basically okay with Wikimedia Values. Clarifying that vision BEFORE assembling the candidate members is important. A brand name isn't the ONLY way to communicate a clear, strong tie to WMF/Wikimedia, but it is a very very powerful way. And remember, we -basically- want the foundation to have a sort of veto power over formal membership in the Unnamed Movement. I can't swear how a future group of people will actually behave, but the hope is that the the 'core' of this Larger Unnamed Movement should so closely tied to WMF that we forget they're not part of it. For the most core projects, ties to the foundation will happen anyway on a case by case-- but the IDEA is that there could be a movement set up to include projects too new or too small to merit ANY such evaluation by the foundation. But the foundation should always feel comfortable supporting and promoting this larger unnamed movement. They should also feel comfortable disavowing isolated bad-faith actors who 'claim' a kinship to the movement. If I just invite the projects that, in my mind, share our values, how do we know we won't wind up a with a group that the foundation and our projects AREN'T comfortable supporting? If the new movement is just another free information movement-- one with no clear ties to WMF or the existing Wikimedia Movement, then the people who join it won't have any clear ties to WMF either. And WMF, therefore, will, in turn, not feel as connected to the larger movement and not feel as comfortable supporting it. A movement can't have a gatekeeper--
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
If I didn't have a heart I would have gone into advertising, specifically for branding. The topic is a long time interest of mine, so here's my amateur opinion with education on the branding world. The success of a brand depends on synching an idea/product with one name. At this point in time, an encyclopedia is rapidly approaching Wikipedia instead of World Book or any other publication. Now, these are publications not generally identified with a brand, but a product name. I'd check an encyclopedia like Encarta or World Book and nowadays Wikipedia. The concept of an encyclopedia has not been branded. Another example is in the American South: every carbonated soft drink is Coke. Do you want a Coke? Sure, Sprite. Wikipedia is on its way to take this over, just as googling exists. It will further overcome the nomenclature for index research. Now, how can we expand this into another name? Simple answer: we can't. Open Knowledge, Free Knowledge, Creative Commons, Gnu, Wikimedia, nothing holds a candle to replacing a verb with a noun. We google, we skype, we Wikipedia. Advancement of the Wikipedia brand is the only feasible option to expand Wikimedia coverage, as shown by almost every study both academically and journalistic relating to our products. If Wikipedia is tied into any coverage related to a sister project it will be read and understood. If not tied in, we get confusion. The Wikipedia brand brings distrust but acceptance to any project stamped with it, and that is our key in the market. People just want to know, as emphasized by the American commercial where a guy is arguing on the phone about when Whoop There It Is came out and he is proved wrong by en.wp mobile. When someone just wants to check something, the name Wikipedia is ruling the roost. The Wikipedia name is the brand. How to boost other projects based on the name is to build all projects into recognition of the Wikipedia umbrella. Google is, so far, what does this. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would be served by a wider unnamed movement. I haven't been anywhere near as ambition to think we could get a brand anywhere as good as Wikipedia. Its brand is so off-the-charts it's a little unfathomable. I'd be happy with something in the neighborhood of Wikimedia-- if donors and editors communities can easily understand it means Wikimedia Movement on other servers, I'm good. Now, how can we expand this into another name? Simple answer: we can't. Well... we certainly do it as well as Wikipedia. But we can piggyback off the Wikipedia name in ways, as the name Wikimedia does. ... Advancement of the Wikipedia brand is the only feasible option to expand Wikimedia coverage, as shown by almost every study both academically and journalistic relating to our products. If Wikipedia is tied into any coverage related to a sister project it will be read and understood. If not tied in, we get confusion. Exactly. The whole online world gets Wikipedia, and the closer you can be tied to it, the more people understand your values. All the WMF-sites ARE seen as tied to Wikipedia-- but the third-party sites are misunderstood, seen as just randomly off doing their own thing. Something close, but not something so close as not to imply direct control by the foundation. I have a very long list of non-wikipedia related names. The list of piggy-back names off Wikipedia is pretty short however: Wikimedia Movement would work for the movement, but it seems a little too in-use and too-close to home for us to use that. Wiki?edia Movement , no clue how you could pronounce it. Wiki*edia Movement , pronounced Wiki-Staredia Movement, Wiki-Edia Movement, pronounced Wiki-Edia Wiki-Seedia Movement, each project is a seed? hokey. For some unknown reason, I also like WikiZedia. An Omega or other symbol in the middle might also work if we want to get really crazy, but pronunciations are essential All these are are very geeky and so not ideal. My brain really isn't the right brain to generate a good piggy-back brand. I don't care what we call it, I more want us to recognize it and start calling it something. And these names also might still be too close to home for some of us. As for the word Movement-- it can always be termed Alliance, Coalition, Cloud, Constellation, Sphere, or something else entirely. Movement is the best factual description, I think, but brands are a whole different ballgame. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 16/07/11 13:19, Alec Conroy wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would be served by a wider unnamed movement. I haven't been anywhere near as ambition to think we could get a brand anywhere as good as Wikipedia. Its brand is so off-the-charts it's a little unfathomable. I'd be happy with something in the neighborhood of Wikimedia-- if donors and editors communities can easily understand it means Wikimedia Movement on other servers, I'm good. Now, how can we expand this into another name? Simple answer: we can't. Well... we certainly do it as well as Wikipedia. But we can piggyback off the Wikipedia name in ways, as the name Wikimedia does. ... Wiki is the key word: for good or ill, the word wiki now means wikipedia-like collaborative things to the general public. Perhaps the Wikiknowledge movement? -- Neil ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 15 July 2011 01:03, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice. It's a thing and it exists and it's a concept that needs a name. I tend to call it the free culture in my head (which has the annoyance that free is ambiguous in English). e.g. discussing how particular people think, X is a free culture native. Y isn't, but is slowly getting the idea. (The only reason this needs a separate name is Creative Commons pushing and continuing to push -NC and -ND. I and we continue to love CC, but what they do is *not quite* what we do.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 14 July 2011 23:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be set up pretty simply: * Establish the fundamentals of a broader identity with a statement of shared values and a general intent to cooperate in the world * Host a portal to communicate broadly common goals and and provide information to both prospective colleagues and the general public * Arrange formal and informal opportunities to create collaborative ties between people and organizations and to develop a sense of shared purpose If you could get to that point growth would be pretty organic; participants would suggest mutually agreeable and beneficial goals and initiatives to be undertaken as a group, such undertakings would drive closer cooperation and legitimate the concept of a free content / open knowledge movement, and so on. Organizations like PLoS, FSF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Wikimedia and others have naturally overlapping interests and philosophies. It would only make sense for those organizations, and the many smaller ones who share their broad values, to cooperate as a group in a more formal way than I believe they do currently. I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on this might be a good move? [0] - opendefinition.org [1] - okfn.org J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on this might be a good move? [0] - opendefinition.org [1] - okfn.org J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] I knew there had to be something like that already. It seems like it would be difficult to adapt an existing organization to the role of a coalition, although if they were willing I think there is certainly room for it and abundant opportunity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message From: James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. Open Knowledge Project only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute Open Knowledge and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. Open Knowledge Project only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute Open Knowledge and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate. Birgitte SB Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle. I don't entirely agree. A good name for a movement is one that describes while it labels, e.g. Creative Commons. I'd like a better name than the free culture when referring to the broader sense of us. If we can come up with one, then win. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation I agree something like Open Knowledge Project would be a more suitable term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. Open Knowledge Project only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute Open Knowledge and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate. Birgitte SB Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal vehicle. A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an Open Content badge. Open Content has to be restricted to places where it is allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content. Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to stamp All material Copyright of [GLAM] everywhere (whether that claim could possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying It's shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
So happy to see all the helpful responses! So, it seems like I only have two mode of communication: Verbose and clear or Brief but confusing. My email starting this thread was brief, let's try the other style. Executive Summary: The Wikimedia Movement is a really big deal that is exploding beyond the confines of WMF servers. As that happens, what do we want to call the movement that includes all the projects with our value set, regardless of their current hosting situation? Right now, the de facto name is 'The Wikimedia Movement'. If we don't like that name, for trademark reasons or for aesthetic reasons, we need to speak up now or forever hold our peace. Non-Summary: Here's the whole train of thought that led to this thread: 1. Wikimedia is a movement. We're a movement with identifiable values. This movement has become very, very successful. 2. The movement is older than the WMF We're not the first people to realize knowledge is good. Our ancestors include proud figures like the public literacy movements, public education movements, the public library movement, the public university movement, some of the public broadcasting movement, the free software movement and far more than could be listed. Our movement's 'basic value' of universal access to information has been saving the world for a long time. We ARE something very new and very exciting-- but we are also the heirs to a proud heritage of great world-changing accomplishments. 3. The movement is bigger than the WMF-hosted projects. Our movement doesn't just stop when you leave wikimedia.org. Our movement and our influence extends far beyond the mere borders of our own offices and our own server farms. In particular, there are now a large number of Mediawiki projects hosted on third-party ISPs. Often these third-party-hosted projects share our values, our userbase, even our software stack. They are accomplishing our mission for us-- they are an unrecognized 'part' of our very own movement. Everyone probably has their own favorite third-party-hosted projects-- for example, I'm really excited by how science is using the Mediawiki model. We could spend a lot of time talking about all the exciting new things that people are doing on third-party-hosted projects using the technology originally developed for WMF-hosted projects. There are lots of projects online that share our values PERFECTLY. They do work we'd be proud to call our own. This number is already in the dozens, probably in the hundreds, and may soon be in the thousands. 3b. The Frontiers of Innovation It's only been ten years, but massive collaboration to create free information is no longer a crazy idea-- it's now seen as one of the most successful authorial models ever discovered. Wikipedia won. But while we've been busy conquering over the encyclopedia world, our new project policy has been, effectively: If you have a new project idea, just go somewhere else and do it. When you're bigger and we're bigger, we'll reconsider things. For a while, people proposed new projects and argued over their merits, but we never signed off on them. At this point, new projects really don't even get discussed with us anymore. New project creators haven't stopped creating amazing things, of course-- they've just stopped bothering to ask us for help, because they know we don't do new projects right now. Be Bold stops at the edit level for us-- project organizers and extension developers have to go through a no-win battle of red tape if they want to get their talents utilized. So instead, they just go to third-party hosts. No red tape, no argument, freedom to innovate, perfect.But no ties to Wikimedia either. Unfortunately for us, this means that much of the exciting, cutting-edge innovation isn't happening on WMF-hosted projects anymore. The most technologically advanced wikis are the ones that aren't hosted by committee. The frontier of innovation are the small projects hosted by third-parties. Once a project has too many readers and too many vested contributors, it simple cannot be as agile. If you have to convince an executive to use a feature, you won't bother building it. If you only have to convince yourself, you start seeing features that are only a single night of coding bliss away from actual use. A existing project already used by millions simply cannot out-innovate a brand new project that has nothing to lose by trying new things. We _need_ the brand new, 1-day-old projects to be part of our movement-- they get the new users, they're where the excitement is, and they're the ones most likely to find out something interesting and useful, something a million-reader-project COULD use. 4. The opportunity for new projects Currently, third-party-hosted projects are seen as something completely and utterly separate from us. They are not seen as part of us. Nor are WMF-hosted projects and our third-party-hosted cousins seen as part of
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@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. This! We want the first-class citizenship provided by We're Part of The Wikimedia Movement, but without trademark issues AND without stepping on toes. But it has to be equal footing and membershipy. An I 3 The Wikimedia Movement bumper sticker just isn't the same effect. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote: Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement. Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P Wiki is just a tool for creating content. Wikimedia is a movement and people want to be a part of the movement. Good point and good point. There are lot of alternate terms running around. Wiki Knowledge Movement is certainly a plausible one that would fit the bill. In my own mind, I use Free Culture Movement. Emotionally, I think my brain still lumps it all under the concept Public Library-- everything got really dang fancy, but it's the same spirit.But the 'sacredness' I feel about WM is the same exact kind of 'sacredness' I felt about walking in a public library in childhood-- both are a benevolent force for universal enlightenment. The problem with using Wiki in the movement is that we definitely are bigger than just wikis either. If a project uses some other software, but shares our values, they're still in the movement. Wiki, formally, refers just to the software tool, although in the wider world it's conflated with being Wikipedia-like in some way. Some parts of the movement may not be projects that use wikis. They might be at the fringe, but we don't want to exclude them if they share our basic values. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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 ) That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks. We don't want them associated with just any project. The Foundation, or its delegate, needs to approve any affiliations. Letting anyone call themselves part of the movement could cause us significant harm since an affiliation doesn't just say that the project supports us, but that we support the project. We don't want people claiming we support them unless we actually do. Precisely. So what do we want them saying instead when they're in that situation?We can write the text, we can design the badges, we just need to let them know what we want that text and badge to be. And, of course, we need to have it reflect something ABOUT them that they would put it up-- it can't just be a link or a banner, it needs to be about movement identity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long time. Having people add Part of the Wikimedia Movement would benefit both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those who are actively collaborating with us would be a start. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long time. Having people add Part of the Wikimedia Movement would benefit both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those who are actively collaborating with us would be a start. Thanks for the kind words. And the only thing that's stopping us from having that many sites in the movement is Trademark Law / Branding . The idea works and requires no resources, just a small campaign of communication offering up the possibility. But, if 1) we like the idea of Part of the $x Movement and 2) we don't want to use Wikimedia in the movement name, Then: We should _really_ ask the foundation professionals to use their non-profit magic to find the right name. Experts have gotten quite good at picking brand names, and our foundations' experts are quite... expert. These people put together fundraising campaigns with ever-increasingly head-explodingly-successful results. They have conducted journal-grade scientific investigations into our readership and our editor populations, diagnosing problem areas with pinpoint accuracy before the problems develop into diseases. If somebody's going to evaluate brand names based on their appeal to the wider population, I vote they be the ones to do it. :) Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 14 July 2011 15:32, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ) That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks. We don't want them associated with just any project. The Foundation, or its delegate, needs to approve any affiliations. Letting anyone call themselves part of the movement could cause us significant harm since an affiliation doesn't just say that the project supports us, but that we support the project. We don't want people claiming we support them unless we actually do. Precisely. So what do we want them saying instead when they're in that situation? We can write the text, we can design the badges, we just need to let them know what we want that text and badge to be. And, of course, we need to have it reflect something ABOUT them that they would put it up-- it can't just be a link or a banner, it needs to be about movement identity. One option would be to make a simple process through which they can request official affiliation and then those projects that are in keeping with our values and purpose could be given permission to call themselves part of the Wikimedia Movement or similar. Another option is to not have them as part of the Wikimedia Movement, but for them and us to be part of a new group. The Association of Free Content Producers and Providers, perhaps. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I dislike the idea of making it ultra-accessible for basically anyone to stick Part of the Wikimedia Movement on their website - it serves little purpose (per se) and you are going to get the vast majority of people slapping it on as a neat badge (or to take advantage of the brand) without actually subscribing or forwarding our aims. Wikimedia has broad aims, but a reasonably narrow focus, and that makes the movement hard for some to digest. snip Yes to everything about this email, I should absolutely clarify that when I have been using the phrase Part of the Wikimedia Movement, that is entirely so people will say Hey, we shouldn't use that name in that way!. I concur wholeheartedly.Such use would be a major brand experimentation for no good reason. I just say Wikimedia Movement because that's the name I have in my head that explains the concept to this audience-- but actual name MUST change before it's put in use by third-party-projects. Alternate brand with gradual membership, as you suggest, is the clear winner. As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right. As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts. Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for the most effective solution. We could at least brainstorm some ideas? Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will forgive me if I ignore most. I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia Movement. Within the Free Content Movement, which is indeed very old, Wikimedia is a leader. The Wikimedia movement is much more narrow. I would love to see some ideas to define the free content movement a bit better - I guess that is more or less what you were working to. I would not like us to confuse people even further by mixing up names (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki), so lets make that Wiki- and media-neutral. I think there are already works in that direction (I think something like Free Culture Defined), and it would probably make most sense to work in that direction - with them, dont re-invent the wheel. When it comes to Wiki's being used for good goals, I don't see Wiki's as special, sorry. Wiki's are a tool, not determining anything. I would be totally fine if Wikiversity would decide next month to start using Moodle instead of MediaWiki, and still be Wikimedia project. Maybe collaborative authoring is a shared thing, but not even that is something that is the same everywhere in Wikimedia, let alone in Free Culture/Content. I don't see much use for defining a movement along that criterium. Then finally, there is the very important question of how to stimulate innovation. I have been bothered by this as well the past few years, and I have as well been wondering why we are so extremely conservative. Why dont we like new and fresh ideas, why do we want to keep everything the same? Not only with software improvements, but also with new projects. Yes, I do agree here and I would love to see the incubator expand in a way - and also allow totally new content types to experiment. There is one disadvantage though: companies have developed around that already (like Wikia) and we don't currently have the infrastructure and support they can offer to new projects. We dont have the staff to help new communities form. Maybe we should, maybe we should leave it with those commercial parties. In any case the current way is bad for our movement in the long term. And I mean our movement in the narrow sense of the word. Best regards, Lodewijk Am 14. Juli 2011 19:06:47 UTC+2 schrieb Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com: Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right. As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts. Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for the most effective solution. We could at least brainstorm some ideas? Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be set up pretty simply: * Establish the fundamentals of a broader identity with a statement of shared values and a general intent to cooperate in the world * Host a portal to communicate broadly common goals and and provide information to both prospective colleagues and the general public * Arrange formal and informal opportunities to create collaborative ties between people and organizations and to develop a sense of shared purpose If you could get to that point growth would be pretty organic; participants would suggest mutually agreeable and beneficial goals and initiatives to be undertaken as a group, such undertakings would drive closer cooperation and legitimate the concept of a free content / open knowledge movement, and so on. Organizations like PLoS, FSF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Wikimedia and others have naturally overlapping interests and philosophies. It would only make sense for those organizations, and the many smaller ones who share their broad values, to cooperate as a group in a more formal way than I believe they do currently. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts. Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for the most effective solution. We could at least brainstorm some ideas? Absolutely! If we do this, the very first step should be a widespread call to brainstorm names. Truth be told, I think I actually could generate a list of a hundred or more 'sane' options-- it's something I've thinking about for a long time. But, actually brainstorming that list is a big upfront time-investment for potentially zero payoff. Until we have some idea that this kind of outreach and project-reclamation movement is something want to do, it's hard to focus on names when the dialog is still digesting the need. We somebody important enough decided this deserves objective 'brand evaluation' support, then we'll know the idea is worth brainstorming. Right now, I can come up with lots of names, but they're all names that appeal to me. And since I'm already part of Wikimedia, I'll be in the Unnamed movement no matter what it's named, so I'm not really in the target audience. The people a name matters to are not the insiders-- we're already sold. We pick the name for the rest of the world... Our name is how we present ourselves to the world.And we want a name that turns strangers into readers and readers into editors. Simultaneously, we want a name that will also to EVERYONE into donors, and our fundraising team seems like they are very, very tied in to the donor population what appeals to it. If we go with an informative name or a WM-related name it might not matter, but if we go with a 'evocative' or 'inspirational' name, we need to make sure it inspires OTHERS, not just us. :) Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 PM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will forgive me if I ignore most. I'm so happy anyone found it worth reading! It's quite tome-ish . I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia Movement. Right. The Unnamed Movement, which I earlier sometimes called the Wikimedia Movement, is definitely not the group of people who use wikis. Included, however, are the entire wikimedia movement. The scope of this Unnamed Movement is unclear, but it would definitely have to be at least as wide so as to include all the projects we wish we could say were ours. A wider circle, projects that say in good faith they share our values, is also part of this Unnamed movement. That's the narrowest conceivable definition of the Unnamed movement. If we want, the Unnamed movement could be very wide in scope, including anyone connected to free information-- from free software foundation to eff to american library association, and any smaller projects that lie in between those groups and us. That would be a very expansive vision of the Unnamed movment. I would not like us to confuse people even further by mixing up names (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki), so lets make that Wiki- and media- neutral. Agree and agree. Wiki- and Media- would be to express a connection to the existing core-WM movement. If we can find a name that still evokes a connection to our core, without using the words Wiki or Media, that would be a definite plus. I think there are already works in that direction (I think something like Free Culture Defined), and it would probably make most sense to work in that direction - with them, dont re-invent the wheel. Here's why we re-invent the wheel. From my vantage point, it looks like we're at the epicenter of this Unnamed movement. IF we us a pre-existing 'wheel' (brand), then we forfeit the opportunity to invent a wheel (brand) in which we are explicitly the central hub. Right now, our status as the de facto central hub is, in fact, one of our greatest assets. If we pick a name that doesn't clearly promote Wikimedia , e.g. Free Culture Movement, then the resulting movement won't promote Wikimedia every time its name is used. We want a 'spin off' brand, something that evokes Wikimedia without being Wikimedia. When it comes to Wiki's being used for good goals, I don't see Wiki's as special, sorry. Wiki's are a tool, not determining anything. Agreed. They're a very very special tool, but software not a reasonable definition for a movement. The Unnamed Movement should be software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice. I just mentioned only the Mediawikis because we currently host only mediawikis, and I didn't want anyones head to explode if I proposed too much change in one email . But yes, we would also have absolutely no reason to exclude non-wikis from the Unnamed movement. I'm really happy to see someone else stressing that-- it's something worth stressing. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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...@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 alecmcon...@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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 lodew...@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...@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 alecmcon...@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
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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 zvand...@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 lodew...@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...@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 alecmcon...@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
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement. Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: 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 zvand...@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 lodew...@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...@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 alecmcon...@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
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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 zvand...@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 lodew...@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...@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 alecmcon...@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
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote: Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement. Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P Wiki is just a tool for creating content. Wikimedia is a movement and people want to be a part of the movement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 13 July 2011 01:32, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@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 ) That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks. We don't want them associated with just any project. The Foundation, or its delegate, needs to approve any affiliations. Letting anyone call themselves part of the movement could cause us significant harm since an affiliation doesn't just say that the project supports us, but that we support the project. We don't want people claiming we support them unless we actually do. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
I have been working on collaborations with a couple of groups including ECGPedia (http://en.ecgpedia.org/) and TRIP Database ( http://www.tripdatabase.com/). Both are fairly well known sites and share our values. They are both interested in working with us in some manner. Is this something I could offer them? Right now ECGpedia is offer us 2000 ECG images and TRIP Database is looking at linking to our high quality medical content thus increasing our exposure. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
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 alecmcon...@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
