El 22/08/2016 a las 08:40 p.m., Pine W escribió:
I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the
capacity and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in
Cascadia, a very small number of people do quite a lot of work related
to the Wikimedia mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant
efforts by people working with limited resources are commendable, but
that doesn't mean that an organization has high capacity or is highly
Excuse me, but not all chapters can partner with the Guggenheim Museums,
NASA or the MIT. Success is related to the resources available and
you're ignoring that.
Chapters have a geographic scope different from UGs and ThOrgs. I
thought that distinction was clear.
It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if
we're going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have
a meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way
of making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility
into the criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other
needs, as I have already discussed.
Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every
group a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would
want to think about that very carefully.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
<ma...@wikimedia.org.ve <mailto:ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>> wrote:
You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff
at a hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn
South Sudan is way bigger than those working for a state-of-the
art hospital in Portland, Zurich or Singapore, so you think they
shouldn't be considered "good hospitals" or not even "hospitals"
because they don't meet the quantitative and set on stone criteria
I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the
least. Every chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely
quantitative would be unfair and damaging to the movement and the
efforts of many wikimedians who cannot contribute in the ideal
conditions, yet they go the extra mile where others living in a
paradise wouldn't do that.
Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the
community to refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet.
But that's the general idea and the AffCom is there to assist as
much as possible to those groups who wish to meet the criteria.
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com <mailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com>>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <email@example.com
<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>, "Wikimedia Movement
Affiliates discussion list" <affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions"
Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
thematic organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria
should also apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is
in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be
given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not
meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they
should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for
chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.
Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there
needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the
definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is
effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To
use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care
for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is
in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks
essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and
has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled
hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school
diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high
school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing
which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me
that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia
While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be
deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a
chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this
particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following
ways", it still seems to me that the criteria for chapter status
should be transparent, objective (primarily quantitative), and
easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be chapters.
I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input
will be included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss
the criteria for chapters and thematic organizations.
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely
quantitative, so that
there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates
these standards and therefore there is likely to be less
the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that
the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the
world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria
because the situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an
example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue
for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky
enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily
blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son marcas
registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>,
una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas
pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
Affiliates mailing list
Affiliates mailing list
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia
Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son
marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas
pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com