[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Wed Jul 13 18:41:59 UTC 2011

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.sj at 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 <zvandijk at 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 <lodewijk at 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.sj at 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 <alecmconroy at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>