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 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ziko van Dijk >> The Netherlands >> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l