Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
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" : > 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 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" : >> > 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
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 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" : > > 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 < > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> camelia boban 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
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 < f...@yandex.com> 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" : > > 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 < > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> camelia boban escreveu no dia terça, > 12/02/2019 > >> à(s) 11:18: > >> > >> > (...) > >> > In line with
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
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" : > 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 < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> camelia boban 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
