Talk:Cascadia Wikimedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Wikimedia Cascadia)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3


Anyone going to Wikimania in London? -Another Believer (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See Cascadia Meetup if you want to connect at some point during the conference! --Another Believer (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User group name[edit]

As noted in the user group application questions above, we have three user group name to choose from:

  • Wiki Group Cascadia
  • Cascadia Wikimedians
  • Cascadia Wikimedians User Group

Thoughts? --Another Believer (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • My preference is for Cascadia Wikimedians. Short, simple, and consistent with similar user group names. --Another Believer (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I concur. Libcub (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I vote Cascadia Wikimedians Mcnabber091 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I prefer Cascadia Wikimedians because it's short. Wiki Group Cascadia is nice too but I think it has the potential to be a little confusing because there are so many wikis out there and even quite a lot in Cascadia. —mako 17:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My preference is for Wiki Group Cascadia because that emphasizes that we're a single group and sounds more professional. --Pine 06:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Request: Could you please let me know on my talkpage or email when you reached a decision? Thanks! — T. 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to suggest to set-up a vote alike system (possibly with a flexible time frame) just to see which one is the most preferable. — T. 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some others that have come to mind: Cascadia User Group, or Cascadia Wiki User Group? Just thinking out loud. --Another Believer (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer in my opinion "Cascadia User Group" is too generic and "Cascadia Wiki User Group" sounds like we are users of a "Cascadia Wiki". Can you discuss with me on IRC? --Pine 04:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been speaking with AffCom here at Wikimania. It sounds like the name is the last hoop we need to jump through for user group recognition. By my count, four people here have expressed their preference for Cascadia Wikimedians and one prefers Wiki Group Cascadia. Is there a way we can finalize this as soon as possible? --Another Believer (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer I am conceding to Cascadia Wikimedians. I have emailed Tanvir. --Pine 20:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Pine, for your flexibility and for contacting Tanvir. --Another Believer (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon: Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Sept. 13[edit]

For anyone wanting to attend in person or support our efforts remotely, there will be a Feminist and Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon in Portland, Oregon on Saturday, September 13. --Another Believer (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just sharing a few pictures from the event. Thanks to all who came! I estimate there were around 30 participants, mostly female.

-Another Believer (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's official! User group approved by Affiliations Committee[edit]

It's official -- Cascadia Wikimedians has been approved by the Affiliations Committee! A big thank you to all who have helped to make this become a reality. There remains some set up work to be done. Some conversations have taken place on the mailing list, but it might also be worth discussing the next steps here. --Another Believer (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mailing list[edit]

Attention supporters: Admrboltz, Another Believer, Arlolra, Benjamin Mako Hill, Blue Rasberry, Blurpeace, Brianhe, Cindamuse, Dennis Bratland, Djembayz, Dschwen, Epistemophiliac, GabrielF, GeorgeBarnick, Jtmorgan, Legoktm, Llywrch, Maximilianklein, Mcnabber091, OR drohowa, Peaceray, Quiddity, Riley Huntley, Sodaant, The Interior, Vanisaac, and Yawnbox: we are now recognized as a user group! Please subscribe to [1] for updates. --Pine 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving this from the main page to this talk page. --Another Believer (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Another Believer thanks. I have made updates to the main page, please check to see if you are in agreement. --Pine 17:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for making these improvements. I did change the lead to read "Cascadia Wikimedians is the Wikimedia user group which serves as the regional affiliate for the Cascadia region of North America…", since the group is (at least for now) just an affiliate and not an independent nonprofit organization. --Another Believer (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Registration open for Community Data Science Workshops in Seattle, November 7 - 22[edit]

As we discussed at last week's Seattle meetup, Mako, Frances Hocutt and I are organizing a series of free, public workshops that use Wikimedia data to teach people programming and data science skills. The first sessions are on November 7th and 8th. Go here for more information and to register, and contact Mako or me if you'd like to volunteer/mentor! Cheers, Jtmorgan (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User group name discussion with Affiliation Committee, part 2[edit]

Hi Cascadians,

The Affiliations Committee, in association with WMF Legal, has reversed its previous approval of our proposed group name of Cascadia Wikimedians. There appears to be a desire on their part to emphasize within our legal name that we are a user group. Personally I am frustrated by this change of opinion, I feel that this degree of concern with group names is excessive, and I feel that groups should have more autonomy in choosing their names since we are legally independent of WMF. I hope to discuss these and other matters via a Hangout conversation with the chair of the Affiliations Committee. Affcom and WMF are aware of our frustration with the length of what should have been a lightweight approval process for our group, and I have made clear to Affcom and WMF that I believe that the user group approval process has gone astray from the easy process that the WMF Board intended.

Our frustration aside, let us now discuss how we might agree on an alternative group name. I have placed two options below and voiced my personal opinions, and I hope that other Cascadians will also comment so that we can achieve consensus within about a week. Thanks, --Pine 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Alternative 1: "Cascadia Wikimedians User Group"
  • Oppose I feel that this name is cumbersome and a mouthful. --Pine 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Consistent with other user group/affiliate names; reflects connection to the Wikimedia movement. --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Likely Likely I think that the concern that AffCom & WMF Legal have is including "User Group" in the name. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment We should also consider potential acronyms. Rather than CWUG, which could be pronounced "kwug" or "c-wug" (that could be confused with "sea-wug", which would imply Seattle), I would suggest CaW-UG. (WTF?? Why CaW-UG?) Well, we could use CaW for shorthand & it refers to the sound of the raven/crow, a bird that is closely identified with the mythologies of our bioregion. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how much we should worry about acronyms, though we should be conscious not to pick a name that would produce a vulgar acronym. I imagine most people will refer to the group commonly as Wikimedia Cascadia or Cascadia Wikimedians. --Another Believer (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support This puts the most important part at the start, and matches most of the other Wikimedia user groups. It also has echoes of LUGs (linux user groups) and other UGs, which seems appropriate. Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sounds totally fine. We're going to have to change our name Real Soon Now when we become a chapter anyway, right? ;) —mako 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternative 2: "Wiki Group Cascadia"
  • Support It's concise. It avoids using the trademarked "Wikimedia" name, so WMF has no legal grounds to disapprove it. --Pine 07:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't oppose, but I do prefer a name that somehow links to the group to the Wikimedia movement. Otherwise we are just a group of wiki enthusiasts? --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Unlikely Unlikely I do not know if this is likely to be acceptable to AffCom/WMF Legal as it does not explicitly include "User Group" in the name. Peaceray (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral No objections at all but it be nice to refer to Wikimedia in the name. —mako 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Your alternative here
  • I, too, am frustrated that we now have to revisit this discussion when we should be focusing on other tasks. That being said, best not to dwell and to move forward. Pine, thank you for your continued patience and willingness to keep moving things along. --Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Question: It appears that AffCom & WMF Legal are primarily concerned with having User Group as part of the name to designate our function. Is what matters here more the inclusion of the words "User Group" is of importance to them than the issues about the "Wikimedia" brand. Is that the real crux of the matter? Peaceray (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "User group" is a legal term made up by the WMF for the purpose of being an unattractive name with no particular meaning to the outside world, but which is obviously niche and distanced from their brand. The unfortunate part of this is that in distancing the community from their brand, they actually try to distance these groups from society. If the heart of the problem is that they want a group designation in the name, then I might prefer saying "Cascadian Wikimedians... Society, Club, Foundation, Network, Association, Fellowship, Federation, Syndicate, Congress, or Alliance." Those words have obvious meaning, whereas "user group" is a en:WP:NEOLOGISM and en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Consensus shows a preference for the name Cascadia Wikimedians User Group and we have moved forward by giving this name to AffCom/WMF re: user group agreement. The agreement has been signed. We now just wait for a return signature from WMF, and then we are OFFICIAL! -Another Believer (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Drafting programs and an Annual Plan for our first year[edit]

Hi Cascadians,

Below is an outline that we can flesh out to develop our first Annual Plan. Please comment below.

Ongoing programs:

Programs for next year:

Suggestion for program and budget timeline:

  • Submit a 1-year plan and budget to GAC/PEG with the understanding that there will be quarterly reviews by our Cascadia Wikimedians User Group board, including possibly significant plan alterations as our visibility into the future improves, our ability to forecast improves, and our understanding of our opportunities increases.

Infrastructure and administration budget: I'm still working on this. I will have a better ability to look at the insurance piece and the potential need for a coworking office space and/or borrowing space from a community partner, after we have developed a program plan.

Bylaws: We can look at WMNY and WMDC and adapt their bylaws to our own situation.

Plan integration: We need to integrate these components and have flexibility to adapt as we make progress and as our organizational relationships change:

  • Programs
  • Volunteer capacity
  • Staff/contractor capacity
  • External partnerships
  • Budgeting

Please share your thoughts below. Thanks! --Pine 23:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What about some sort of collaboration with Wiki Project Med, or events dedication to health, medicine and/or science? @Bluerasberry, Doc James: Any thoughts? --Another Believer (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Will revisit to add more thoughts, but just wanted to share. We might consider constructing a timeline of sorts for the year? Update: One started below. Feel free to edit. --Another Believer (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that we strive for a minimum of biannual formal editathons in each of Vancouver, BC, Portland, & Seattle. Beyond that, I think we should also do an editathon at WSU in Pullman. I believe that the purpose of these would be two-fold. One is to be educational & welcoming to new editors, & the other would be thematic. I would prefer themes that would tend to attract more women editors to help address our gender gap. Peaceray (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also suggest more informal edithons, in which experienced editors can work on a specific thematic area that needs improvement. Peaceray (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
One edit-a-thon for experienced editors that I would like to suggest is to improve Template documentation for Wikivoyage. Perhaps because Wikivoyage originally started independently then later came under the WMF umbrella, the documentation is not as easy to use as en.wikipedia. In particular, much of the documentation lacks text for easy copy & paste. Peaceray (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


I believe the next ArtAndFeminism campaign is being planned for March 2015. Portland will surely host an event (our fourth?) and it would be great to see Seattle and Vancouver on the map, too. -Another Believer (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Education Program[edit]

See also: Cascadia Wikimedians/Education Program

Partnerships with universities and educational institutions as part of the Education Program / Wiki Education Foundation? -Another Believer (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


See also: Cascadia Wikimedians/GLAM

Possible collaborations with galleries, archives, libraries and museums?

Portland has held one editathon dedicated to the arts, a few Wiki Loves Libraries events, and three art/feminist events. Have other cities in the region hosted events dedicated to the arts, or is there interest in doing so? Some ideas:

  • public art survey and/or photography campaign, perhaps Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art
  • editathon(s) dedicated to local artists, arts organizations and/or public art
  • Wikipedian in Residence at an arts/cultural institution
  • create equivalent of the Wikipedia:Oregon Arts Project for Washington and/or British Columbia (only if there were interest; I mostly use the Oregon project for my own note taking, but it has helped me make great progress on Portland's outdoor sculptures)
  • image donation from a local artist or arts organization/museum

-Another Believer (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I plan to add myself as the one of Users/organizations to contact on the Information by state section of the WP:GLAM/US/Connect page as soon as I get my user page up to snuff. I would like GLAM institutions to see something better to see than user badges and some barnstars when I offer myself as a state GLAM contact. My target date is the first week of 2015, maybe sooner. Peaceray (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Photography campaigns[edit]

For a while I was organizing photography campaign for Portland based on monthly themes (see examples here). Participation was mostly by me and one other contributor, a great photographer who has retired from Wikipedia), but if there were interest in coordinating photography campaigns across the Cascadia region, I would be willing to help. These pages are very simple to create, and they can be very general like "coffee culture" or "churches", etc. Just a way to get people to focus on a common topic and contribute images at their leisure over the course of a month. Similar to Commons' monthly competition, but with a Pacific Northwest twist, and they can also focus on expanding related Wikipedia articles. Of course, if there is not enough interest, we could just participate in Wiki Loves Monuments or even construct our own Cascadia equivalent. -Another Believer (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, and perhaps totally inappropriately, I was considering spearheading a 4/20 content creation campaign, to be held on or around April 20, 2015. For those who may be unfamiliar with the number code, "420" refers to cannabis/marijuana, and there is no better part of the world to cover cannabis culture than the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. (For one, it is legal in Oregon and Washington, so it might be easy for us to gain permission to enter shops and photograph various strains, products, tools for consumption, etc. Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it for the sake of the encyclopedia, right?) Many marijuana-related articles at Wikipedia are terribly underdeveloped, despite its global reach and many cultural aspects, including legislation, music, science (cannabinoids, health and medicine), strains, cultivation, movies, organizations, events, television, religion, etc. Just a thought, and if it's completely ridiculous, just send me to the corner with the dunce cap. -Another Believer (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible calendar[edit]

Feel free to add or remove. Just throwing it out there and seeing what sticks. --Another Believer (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)