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" <kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com>: > > 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 <camelia.bo...@gmail.com> 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 approvals to be dealt with by the community after the > >> problem is already installed. Does not seem a very clever way of > acting. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Paulo - DarwIn > >> Wikimedia Portugal > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
