Greta hi again,
We agree that the discussion is not productive, but we did not initiate
it. On the other hand, we invite everyone involved in this issue to
remember the reasons we got involved in what we do in the first place.
In our case we want to promote open knowledge in the way we think
me growth in terms of activities (from both UGs mentioned
> here) in SQ Wikipedia since our group got recognition. Again there are so
> many projects that can be implemented and there is space for as many people
> as possible!
> Representing Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
лин / Farkhad Fatkullin
Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community
> User Group Albania
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Dear colleagues,
> Cooperation with external entities is best organized thro
Cooperation with external entities is best organized through either national
chapters or thematic organizations, which should be predominantly
self-supporting, thus quasi-independent from WMF. I support Kiril's advice
that WoALUG should be evolving towards a Wikimedia
Thank you for the explanation.
This reminds me a lot to what happened in Macedonia, albeit with different
names of the recognised user groups. The artificially created problem by
the Aff Com has eventually ended up in two user groups being eligible for
WMF grants (another contentious
Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this question.
This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013
chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone UG
(Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing for
First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.
We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as claimed by
Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused
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
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
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
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
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
camelia boban escreveu no dia terça, 12/02/2019
> 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
thanks for the reply - was there any consultation of the first user group
before the decision was made? It should've been obvious from their reports
and grant applications (
We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the
Russian Federation & we welcome this.
1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group (WUG
TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
2) At the same time, we will eventually need
I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking
regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and
the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same
scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece)
Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
left to deal with the fallout of this decision.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta
> Hi Kirill,
> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> followed closely the Brazil
I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha :
> Hi Kirill
> Philip's concerns
Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
very same question.
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky
> Hi Kirill,
> what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
> of Albanian Language
what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
reconising even more user groups from the same area?
Mail list logo