Talk:Wikimedia Cascadia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg

Developing a strategy for organization[edit]

I and other organizers of Wikimedia Cascadia based the initial structure of the project around the precedent set by Wikimedia New York City. Thanks to all members of that Wikimedia chapter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Boundaries[edit]

Map of Cascadia
The dark red states are almost always included within the "Pacific Northwest", while the striped states are usually considered part of the Northwestern U.S. as well.

I love the name Cascadia for the regional chapter, but I am wondering how specific boundaries will be articulated. Currently, the proposal includes the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. I might be incorrect, but I am assuming the proposed chapter is not called Wikimedia Pacific Northwest in an attempt to include areas apart from Oregon and Washington. Definitions for both Cascadia and the Pacific Northwest are ambiguous. See en:Cascadia (independence movement) for more information and context. Cascadia includes Northern California, but would this interfere with the possible formation of Wikimedia California? Is there a benefit to including Northern California apart from the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is based in San Francisco? Speaking in terms of legalities, does crossing multiple state boundaries make chapter formation more difficult? Sometimes the Pacific Northwest refers to just Oregon and Washington; other times it includes parts of Idaho, Montana and even British Columbia. For legal purposes, I imagine no parts of Canada would be included in Wikimedia Cascadia given the existence Wikimedia Canada. States in the West are quite large. What are the pros and cons of having a regional chapter vs. separate chapters for California, Oregon and Washington? Are there reasons to include, or not include, partial sections of Idaho and Montana? Just food for thought. I have been thinking about this chapter a lot recently. --Another Believer (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My thought is to not set hard boundaries and welcome anyone no matter where they live. I am a member of Cascadia culture and would welcome anyone who would join a Cascadia organization. I like the idea of including California and Canada. I see no problem with anyone in Canada or with any other citizenship in joining the group. I have no idea about legal ramifications of being multi-state and multinational. The point of this group for me is to share non-monetary organizational resources and not to grow a large organization.
I would support more organizations for Washington, California, Oregon, or whatever else, but for now since there are not enough people wanting to organize I support the creation of a regional organization just so that the people who want to meet each other can more easily do so. I see no problem with multiple chapters if there are so many people that one regional chapter cannot support them all, and I see no problem with people being a member of multiple chapters if that helps them do their Wikipedia projects more efficiently. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Lane. Like you, I would welcome members and would certainly be okay with contributors being members of multiple chapters. I suppose my questions were more of legal concern than cultural concern. So, what's next? Are we just focusing on the U.S. Federation / WALRUS conversations and draft bylaws? --Another Believer (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continued in the "Jurisdiction" section below. --Another Believer (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Name[edit]

I need some help understanding the rights to this image - File:Flag of Cascadia.svg. The creator of the flag did not upload it. I am not sure about rights ownership of flags - they should be public domain ultimately but I am not sure of the status of this one. There is not good Commons infrastructure for making requests of files to third parties to have them donate their work into the public domain, but here is what exists Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. I have the contact of the creator and I want to ask him if he will donate this into the public domain, but I want to do it in a polite and proper way and I have not yet formatted a request for this.

I hesitate to formally call this organization "Cascadia" without consensus that the flag is in the public domain, because the word "Cascadia" is a bit tied to this flag in some people's minds. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The flag might well be copyrighted as an image, but the name itself couldn't be copyrighted; it could only be trademarked, which it apparently is not.--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure that I want to use a name that is intimately associated with a copyrighted image that elsewhere on the net everyone thinks is public domain. Lots of projects treat the Cascadia flag as if anyone can use it without permission. If I stood behind it for this project I would want to endorse it in the same way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "Cascadia"[edit]

I understand "Cascadia" refers to the bioregion as well as the independence movement. Should we be concerned at all that people may associate the chapter's title with a particular political agenda? --Another Believer (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think anyone should be concerned. I think that if we define what we mean by "Cascadia" then people will understand. Like any other regional chapter, this group should support the people within the geographical region and not to favor any particular ideology. Here is some information about the meaning of the term:
Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well said. I just wanted to put the question out there. I concur with your response. --Another Believer (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Current status; step-by-step chapter creation guide[edit]

Currently, the Wikimedia Cascadia content page gives the impression an organization by this title exists. Should this be changed to explain that the organization has been proposed but does not exist in any legal form at this time? I can think of no better time than the present to discuss the possibility of bringing WC to fruition. Have the eight steps found at the step-by-step chapter creation guide been discussed? --Another Believer (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The first step is "gather people". We can do this in two ways - taking roll here on this chapter page and also by setting up a mailing list. One advantage of a Wikipedia mailing list over something like Google groups is that conversations through Wikipedia's services get copied to be viewable online by anyone, which is considered to be a good thing in this context. The advantage of the list service over just posting here is that not all people enjoy checking meta regularly, so if we have an announcement then email service is the way to deliver messages.
Wikimedia NYC's practices may be a good model for how Wikimedia Cascadia can do things. NYC uses its list service to announce meetings and not much else. The meetings promoted by the NYC list service include the monthly United States national chat, the monthly in-person NYC meeting, and then several times a year a special local event such as Wiki Loves Monuments.
If we were to gather people and prepare for next steps then I think a monthly meeting would be among the first steps, and that giving notice of this meeting through the Wikipedia list service would be a good idea. The general agenda for meetings would be people stating what they are doing on Wikipedia and then sharing any problems they have or support they need. The NYC meetings are by phone conference and last from 30-60 minutes. Ten people typically check in, with perhaps five of those being on every call and the other five being people from the pool who irregularly participate.
Before we gather people I think that we should have some agenda items to discuss so that people will see some reason to join a mailing list and a monthly meeting. Initial thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Bugzilla. The mailing list "creation" section recommends finding consensus on a name. I am assuming Wikimedia Cascadia would be the name of the mailing list? Any other ideas? --Another Believer (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, a few days ago general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation made this statement that thematic chapters are discouraged from using the term "Wikimedia" because of brand confusion. This seems not to be the case with regional chapters, which is what this group would be. However, both Wikimedia NYC and Wikimedia DC legally incorporated under generic names - I think Wiki NYC or some such thing - despite them always having used the public-facing names of Wikimedia XYZ. I do not see much difference in using the name either Wikimedia Cascadia or Wiki Cascadia. The world precedent for regional naming has always been Wikimedia (Region). The WMF counsel's statement is interesting, but it also is not a developed conversation and there is no direction in the statement that any of what is said applies to regional chapters. My own thought is simply that I wonder why they would be protective of thematic names when regional names seem nearly the same to me, and everyone is already using regional names. I say file a buzilla request for "Wikimedia Cascadia". I would volunteer to co-administrate it with anyone else who might be interested. The Bugzilla site looks odd but it is the official bugtracker for the WMF and community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw the statement re: naming conventions for thematic chapters and also wondered why this distinction should be made from chapters based on geographic/regional jurisdiction. I won't focus on that for now since this chapter is not thematic. I much prefer "Wikimedia Cascadia" over "Wiki Cascadia". It would be nice to hear from other contributors but I understand many people may not watch Meta discussions. I will take another look at Bugzilla. --Another Believer (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"Wikimedia Cascadia" is nicer and I prefer that also. If you have trouble with Bugzilla then I will file if you will co-administrate. I would be open to letting anyone else co-administrate too - it is not a big deal but the interface is clunky. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I prefer "Wikimedia Cascadia". --Pine 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted a short note on the talk pages for WikiProject British Columbia, WikiProject California, WikiProject Oregon and WikiProject Washington linking to this page and requesting feedback. Maybe we could recruit a few contributors to jump into these discussions. --Another Believer (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you did that, I tried to collect a list of all WikiProjects with a regional affiliation to this chapter and posted it to the project page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your work reminded me to post similar notifications at WikiProject Seattle and WikiProject Vancouver. --Another Believer (talk)

Mailing list[edit]

I submitted a request for creation of a mailing list, Wikimedia-US-Cascadia, with the following description:

Wikimedia-US-Cascadia is the mailing list for Wikimedia Cascadia, the proposed organization which will serve as the Wikimedia chapter for the Cascadia region of North America, including British Columbia, the Northwestern United States (Pacific Northwest) and Northern California. The mailing list will distribute announcements and provide a platform for discussion for Wikimedians in the Cascadia region.

Visit the following links to view the Wikimedia Cascadia page and its associated discussion page:

Another Believer

Currently, the list's status is "UNCONFIRMED"--will post when I have an update to offer. --Another Believer (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Initial feedback was good, but a two-letter abbreviation was requested. See discussion below. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
See the following link for current discussion:
Too much overlap with Wikimedia California and Wikimedia Canada? --Another Believer (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is a mailing list necessary?[edit]

On the bugzilla page, a respondent requested more information about why this mailing list should be created. Here were that person's stated concerns followed by my response:

  1. Wikimedia Cascadia would include Northern California, and someday there may be a Wikimedia California which would cover the entire state
  2. Wikimedia Cascadia would include British Columbia and undefined other regions already covered by Wikimedia Canada
  3. Not many people have signed up as supporters of Wikimedia Cascadia on this page.

My rationale for supporting the creation of this mailing list was the need I felt for having some kind of mailing list. I was wondering whether it would be best to make one here and let the messages be archived publicly in the Wikimedia system or use Google Groups for a while then migrate to a Wikimedia mailing list later. I thought it might be better to just start here to prevent the need for migration and increase transparency. Some conversation about Wikimedia Cascadia will happen in group email and that could be here or that could be elsewhere, but if it happens elsewhere there is no easy way to make public records of what is said.

If there are markers to be met before the creation of a mailing list then we could organize the meeting of those markers. It is hard for me to determine how regulated the mailing list creation process is; I thought if it was not a big deal and we made a reasonable case for needing it then we could have it.

I have never read anything about avoidance of regional overlap, but I think it would be good to get feedback from Wikimedia Canada. I suspect that it would be in Vancouver's interest to have ties to Seattle and Portland just because those cities have active Wikipedians, they are much closer to Vancouver than any significant Canadian cities, and they share the distinct and permeating common culture of the region. Northern California shares in this culture as well; I do not think people in San Francisco and further north would say that they align culturally more with LA and San Diego than they do with the Pacific Northwest. In any case, this is a voluntary organization and if people find it and like it then they can join. Otherwise they can do something else. I wish that there was so much Wikipedia activity that regional overlap was a problem, but my perspective is that there is relatively little community activity in the United States and Canada as compared to, for example, the UK and Germany, and that any community efforts to do things are helpful.

I would expect about 15 people in the region to subscribe because at least 25 people in the region have participated in a regional event in the past few months. Both Seattle and Portland organized Wikipedia Loves Libraries and Wiki Loves Monuments events this year. Seattle has had regular monthly meetings for about 1.5 years. British Columbia has some highly active Wikipedians even though they do not meetup much.

Where should we go from here? Does anyone have any particular ideas for what should happen before a region gets a mailing list? I am directing the reviewer at Bugzilla here to this talk page. If we get a mailing list then great, we will use it. If not then we can use Google Groups. In either case I think we can proceed to organize members who have a stake in Wikimedia project development in this region. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Logo
Black and white logo

Does anyone know how to create logos? We need one for Wikimedia Cascadia. Here is a category at Commons with examples. Thoughts on other types of logos, banners, barnstars and other images that could be created for the chapter? Perhaps we could somehow incorporate the "Cascadia" colors blue, white and green (see flag). --Another Believer (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I pinged several Commons contributors who have uploaded logos for other chapters, asking for assistance if possible. --Another Believer (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been talking with User:Isarra about this. She has made many logos for Wikimedia projects and she may help us also. If you wanted to liaise with her about this project then perhaps you could contact her. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the suggestion. I went ahead and sent a message to User:Isarra. I imagine amending editable images is not difficult, but unfortunately I am not familiar with the process. Thanks again. --Another Believer (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ask and ye shall receive. File:Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg --Varnent (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! --Another Believer (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You are most welcome! --Varnent (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
en:User:Ktr101, an excellent regional ambassador in the US Wikipedia education program, also participated in the creation process. Thanks to both him and Varnent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you as well, indeed! --Another Believer (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, that was what you wanted? Sorry, I totally misread this and was set to make something massively overcomplicated. Glad someone understood and actually got this done. -— Isarra 05:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I want it now that it is here but I did not think of this before it arrived. I will talk to you about other things. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Isarra, are you referring to an original logo? By all means, feel free to put on your creative hat! :) --Another Believer (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See black and white SVG logo as well, thanks to Danny B. Never know when it might come in handy! --Another Believer (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Two-letter code (abbreviation)[edit]

In accordance with Mailing lists/Standardization, the chapter should have a two-letter abbreviation. "Cascadia" does not suggest an immediate and obvious abbreviation (CC?, CS?, etc.), so I propose "WC" as the two-letter code. "WC" could stand for "Wikimedia Cascadia" and could also be interpreted as "West Coast". The code is not currently being used by another chapter, which cannot be said of "CA" which is used by Wikimedia Canada. Thoughts? Other suggestions?

This would make the mailing list title Wikimedia-US-WC and the chapter abbreviation (see list here) US-WC. Please provide any feedback as soon as possible as I am currently working on establishing the mailing list. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like using the full name "Cascadia" is an option - see bugzilla. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I was lead to believe different options based on notes from two contributors. I am fine with the full name spelled out, though I wonder if eventually we will be asked to come up with a two-letter abbreviation for the sake of consistency with other chapters. --Another Believer (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking WM-CAS, but I would live with WM-WC, WM-CS, or WM-CD if needed. --Pine 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program[edit]

It would be nice to have the paragraph re: Wikipedia Education Program fleshed out. Perhaps an overview of the project overall as well as how the Canada and US projects relate to Wikimedia Cascadia. I went ahead and included links to two campuses in the region with ambassadors (SF State Uni. and Uni. of Washington). Are there others? --Another Believer (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OHSU in Portland. en:User:UseTheCommandLine is coordinating a program with the new doctors in residency. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

Flag

Greetings. I was asked by a Wikimedia Cascadia member via email and Skype some time ago and today he has asked me to draw up a Cascadia flag that this group can use without any copyright restrictions. I have uploaded not upload the declaration of public domain but also design specifications at File:Casscadia WM.pdf. It took the ideas that he and other group members had and took me about an hour to get this design going. The Douglar fir tree was taken from the Oregon state license plate and the colors of the stripes were found in all three flags (BC, OR and WA). Enjoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, looks great! Thank you so much. --Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Until the flag debate below is resolved, I went ahead and added both images to Commons:Category:Wikimedia Cascadia. --Another Believer (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag discussion[edit]

I like the Cascadia flag but the flag seems to be used for the Cascadia independence movement which includes British Columbia. Since the chapter is an NGO and British Columbia is already served by Wikimedia Canada, I think it would be better if we didn't use this flag for an official symbol of the chapter. --Pine 23:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though I never thought the flag was intended to serve as an official symbol of the chapter (realizing my edit to include the flag on the main page contradicts this point). I simply thought the flag would be good to include as a cultural reference. I did, however, notice the similar colors in the Cascadia flag and the Wikimedia logo. Perhaps we could have a banner or other image to use that combines these two designs? For now, I will move the flag to the "Why Cascadia?" section, which I also think should be moved to a subpage. The main page should be reserved for essential chapter information. People interested in reading about the history of the Cascadia region can do so on Wikipedia. --Another Believer (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Having a chapter flag similar to the Cascadia flag seems reasonable. If we have a flag then I suggest that we have a five stripe background of blue for Montana, green for Washington, blue for Oregon, dark red for California, and blue for Idaho, and have the chapter logo in the middle with the words "Wikimedia Cascadia." --Pine 19:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Great idea. Perhaps the colors could be similar to the official Wikimedia logo colors, that way if states branch off and form their own chapters our flag colors are still relevant? I think the Wikimedia logo colors and the actual state flag colors are quite similar already, actually. --Another Believer (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we can keep the original colors even if states eventually branch into their own chapters. The flag for the Cascadia chapter would reflect its heritage original members which is almost as good as reflecting its current members. Unless some state chapter has a problem with this, which seems unlikely, I think the flag's colors could stay as they are. --Pine 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Do we have any flag designers in the house? --Another Believer (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
en:user:Zscout370 is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on representing political flags digitally, or at least he knows more about the topic that the government officials of almost any country. He made File:Cascadia WM.svg and he sent me more documentation about it. The flag is already a well-known symbol as it has been used freely in marketing campaigns for years. The version of it which he just made for this group incorporates the Douglas fir from the Oregon automobile license plate and colors used by the governments of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. I support the flag as an advertising symbol because it is a well-known symbol for the region and because it is associated with the term "Cascadia". I never intended for it to represent Wikimedia Cascadia particularly; I just think it represents the geographical region like most other flags.
While I like the idea of including Montana, Idaho, and California, I also hope that the day comes when each of these regions forms their own chapters. en:Northern California is somewhat accessible to Portland and from there Seattle and Vancouver, but Southern California, Idaho, and Montana are 6-10 hour drives away at least and 15-20 hour drives away from these cities in places. I think that we should focus on the metropolitan areas where Wikipedians are already active and able to geographically visit each other in person, and then if other people in the region feel that they want to travel and join the people in Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver, then they would be welcome.
About logos - I am not sure what is best. The other regional chapters use the standard Wikimedia chapters logo without variation. There may be useful branding advantages in doing what everyone else is doing. I like the idea of using the Cascadia flag and the default Wikimedia chapters logo distinctly from each other. The Cascadia flag says that something is happening in a certain region and the Wikimedia logo communicates that Wikimedia stuff is what is happening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
My concern is using a flag that already has an associated meaning, especially one that represents a particular political ideology. Do other chapters even have flags? Would Wikimedia Texas have the official flag of Texas as their official flag? Would they try to create a unique flag that references the Texas flag? --Another Believer (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Although certain regions may have a particular ideology, I feel like the flag of any given place more represents the geographical location than an ideology. Some people may feel that the mention of a place represents an ideology, but I think that they should not. I feel like if there were any special reason why a chapter would need to showcase who they were then the flag of their location would be a natural choice, as that is the traditional marker of a place. I see no particular reason why anyone would re-create the recognized symbol of any region if the existing one was already sufficient. No other chapters really use flags, but I thought the flag would be a good way to explain the geographical proximity of Portland/Seattle/Vancouver and the precedent for collaboration between the people in this region. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page structure[edit]

There is quite a bit of text on this page. Perhaps we could organize it a bit more like Wikimedia Indigenous Languages (with less text and more of an overview), with subpages for extended content. I have not thought this all the way through yet, but I think it would be good to have at least separate pages for Events and Projects.

The main page could have a general overview about how events would be organized by the chapter, with an overview of the different types of events (editathons, meetups, backstage passes, unconferences, socials, etc.); the subpage could go into more detail, with separate sections for annual events such as Wikipedia Takes..., Great American Wiknic, etc. The events page could also provide a list of events of that type that have been hosted (for example, WLL events were held in Portland and Seattle (and probably San Francisco as well).

Similarly, the Projects section could simply discuss how the chapter would be involved in partnering with other organizations and organizing projects with specific goals. The Projects subpage could go into more detail, with possible partnerships, completed projects, etc.

I am glad to see there are so many potential collaborative projects and partnerships, but we should present these opportunities (and... hopefully... success stories) in a very organized manner. I think a little forking would make the main page a bit less overhwhelming, but I don't want to make any changes before discussing. Any thoughts are appreciated. --Another Believer (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that this page should be forked into subpages. I think there should be at least three pages - the main page, which gives an overview and advertising upcoming events; an event history page, and a projects page. Entries on the project page would be there in summary form until they are well established, at which time those projects would get their own page and all discussion from the main talk page would be moved to the individual project page. This is the way with the most precedent, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I created an Events page. I still think the Events section on the main page needs some work. For now, the Events page itself contains separate sections for the four annual events (Wikipedia Day, Wiki Takes, WLL and WLM), with brief descriptions of each as well as archives with links to meetup pages. These archives show which cities are active within Cascadia by year and provide users easy access to meetup pages at Wikipedia. Do feel free to comment, add missing event links, etc. here. --Another Believer (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Archive links are displayed by city, north to south. I included any cities in British Columbia and as far south in the US as San Francisco (but not San Jose?). If, in the future, geographic boundaries dictate which cities should be included (San Francisco is considered Wikimedia California, for example), city links could easily be removed. --Another Believer (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how we could best organize and present the various outreach projects and programs currently mentioned on the page? There are many different types of projects... Education Program, GLAM, activist organizations, indigenous languages, etc. I think it's a lot to try to digest at once. --Another Believer (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

History[edit]

I am curious about the history of this proposed chapter. I see the page was constructed this summer, but have conversations re: Cascadia been taking place longer? I see many other chapters have a subpage dedicated to its history. The history of this chapter appears to be quite short at this time, but if things progress it might be worth constructing a timeline of its origins, important meetings, document drafts, etc. --Another Believer (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Benefits[edit]

What are the benefits of forming a regional chapter? --Another Believer (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Funding and credentials from the foundation are one thing Pine, Dennis Bratland and I discussed. For instance we might be able to fund an intern to do some of the photo gathering projects that WikiProject Washington has requested. Brianhe (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I quote from Local chapter FAQ#What is the point of having chapters?
"Chapters exist to further the goals of Wikimedia. They do so by engaging in a wide range of activities, which includes but is not limited to the following:
  • Promoting the Wikimedia projects so that new and different people join them or use them (academics, scientists, college students, schools, libraries etc.)
  • Investigating and negotiating partnerships on a moral or financial basis to support the Wikimedia projects.
  • Helping outside organisations use Wikimedia content, possibly for their own benefit (eg. help publishers of local history Wikireaders, of a Wikipedia DVD in a given language)
  • Organizing local and national events and initiatives (eg. participate in trade shows, set up Wikipedia parties, give lectures etc.)
  • Taking care of PR and lobbying in a given country, give the press an interlocutor in their own language and culture.
  • Enabling (where applicable) tax-deductible donations in the country they are based in.
  • Promoting Free Content and wiki culture in their respective territory."
For WM-Cascadia, I add the following points, some of which were originally raised by others, concerning why we may want to form a chapter instead of some other kind of organization. The information below is not professional legal advice. Individuals and organizations may want to consult an attorney when making legal decisions.
  • I believe that a chapter that is an independent legal entity provides some degree of legal protection for its board members, unlike an unincorporated association of individuals in which every individual member may be personally liable for the acts of another member of the association.
  • Chapters which are independent legal entities may have their own bank accounts, form contracts, raise funds, receive payments, hire staff, and distribute grants, scholarships, stipends, and compensation in compliance with their charters and policies. For example, a chapter may award scholarships to attend Wikimedia events.
  • Chapters that are 501c3 compliant and compliant with state fundraising regulations may have the additional benefit that their donors may be able to write off their donations as charitable contributions.
  • Chapters may get easier access to "press pass" style access to areas that are restricted from general public.
  • 501c3 compliant chapters may be able to relatively easily recruit college students for paid or unpaid internships. The interns will gain experience that may be relevant for their resumes, and Wikimedia projects may benefit from the interns' contributions.
Also, in the words of Bluerasberry at [1]: "Independent volunteers can handle most Wikimedia projects, including the coordination of many events and outreach efforts. However, at the point when projects become so complicated that participants in them begin to consider a long-term, invested effort to make the project successful, the participants expect the professionalism and stability that comes managing projects with an organization rather than with only unaffiliated, independent volunteers. In such cases, Wikimedia Cascadia accepts proposals for collaboration so that Wikimedia users can have the backing and support of an organization when they conduct their Wikimedia outreach efforts. This makes the local Wikimedia community participants feel supported, the outreach audience feel more confident, and gives the international network of Wikimedia project participants a communication channel with the region so that they can have stake in the major projects there."
--Pine 03:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The internship model interests me a lot. There is an unusually large internship/training culture in this region and I think that lots of places who have existing internship programs would like to partner with Wikimedia Cascadia to include Wikipedia training in the program. I also think that many bright students would be interested in learning Wikipedia proficiency as a job skill. Personally, I have participated in Seattle-area volunteer training programs in art, law, criminal justice, public health, faith-based community service, environmentalism, and human rights, and and I can imagine all of these programs incorporating Wikimedia content development. This model of Wikimedia Cascadia being a respectable organization to supervise relationships between Wikipedians and other organizations seems ideal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitations to join ongoing discussion?[edit]

Would it be worth creating an invitation for distribution on Wikipedia users' talk pages, inviting them to visit the WM Cascadia links here at Meta and to participate in these discussions? Here is an example of what I have in mind. The invitations posted on WikiProject talk pages did not receive much response. --Another Believer (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something like the following (please ignore the redlinks... the message is intended for distribution on Wikipedia). I am definitely open to suggestions, changes or holding off until there might be a better time to request additional input.

Wikimedia Cascadia logo.svg WIKIMEDIA CASCADIA
You're invited to participate in ongoing discussions at Meta-Wiki about a proposed organization called Wikimedia Cascadia. This organization would serve as the Wikimedia chapter for the Cascadia region of North America, including British Columbia, the Northwestern United States (Pacific Northwest) and Northern California. The mission of the organization would be to support Cascadian Wikipedians in their Wikipedia-related endeavors and to collaborate with Wikimedia chapters to create a world in which the sum of all human knowledge is available for free to everyone.

Please feel free to contribute to these discussions, or add your name to the list of supporters if you would like to be an active member.

Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it would be appropriate to post these to userpages. However, I would like to think more about the content of this page before we do it. Brianhe posted feedback below and I think it would be worth waiting just a bit to think about what is here and how it should look before being hasty and inviting others. I want to make a good impression. Also, there are some highly active Wikipedians in the region who should probably be personally notified first before we post this to people who have more casually participated in the past. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. And I agree, a good first impression is important. I won't post anything until we are more comfortable distributing invitations to wide audiences. --Another Believer (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Political/religious views probably not appropriate[edit]

Linking to the Jesusland map in the project description seems inappropriate to me. Let's keep this inclusive. Especially considering that, internally, Cascadia isn't homogenous in this regard at all, see this Ref 74 results map for a typical east/west split. Brianhe (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, I think most of the "Why Cascadia?" section should be removed, or at least forked. Wikimedia Cascadia should not affiliate itself with the independence movement. It might be appropriate, however, to discuss the mission and goals of the chapter. The only similarity I see with the independence movement is an emphasis on local culture. I do not think it would hurt to provide an overview of the Cascadia region, such as major cities with populations, map, etc. --Another Believer (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I changed the section to the following:

"Cascadia" is a term describing the bioregion surrounding the Cascade Range. The region politically centers on the cities Vancouver, Seattle and Portland, which are geographically proximate and each have city populations of about 600,000 and metropolitan area populations of more than two million. Cascadia also refers to the social movement to promote cultural independence for people in the region. Wikimedia Cascadia is not affiliated with the independence movements but does share the common goal of promoting local culture.

Thoughts? I am sure this could be expanded, but at least the Values part has been reduced. --Another Believer (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was not appropriate. I was completely thoughtless in adding it, and was entirely focused on the distinction of it being a "blue state" without considering the reality that this only means that 55% percent of the people voted one way while 45% voted another. There are things which make the region unique but the variation in views on mainstream politics are not among them, nor would this be a good basis for community. I did not even think of referring to any religion when I posted that. The changed version is entirely an improvement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think your intention of providing general values of the region was good, but people can read about these values over at Wikipedia and they should not be associated directly with the chapter. IF we want to provide a much longer overview of the Cascadia region, including population statistics, images, unique values and trends, etc., we can do so but perhaps on a forked page such as "Wikimedia Cascadia/Cascadia". --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jurisdiction[edit]

I think we need to be clear that although the bioregion of Cascadia includes British Columbia, this chapter will not because British Columbia is claimed by Wikimedia Canada unless they feel like giving it to us. Also, we are likely including all of Idaho and Montana, and we may consider including Alaska, all of which I'm not sure would be included in the bioregional model of Cascadia. I think it might be more accurate to say that we are "Wikimedia Northwest US" rather than "Wikimedia Cascadia" although I like the name "Cascadia" better. --Pine 18:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the two maps in the "Boundaries" section above, this one might come in handy during this discussion. The map differentiates between political boundaries associated with the independence movement and the border of the bioregion.
Thanks for sharing. This is exactly the kind of feedback we need. I have thought of this as well... Cascadia vs. Pacific Northwest vs. Northwest US. I like the name Cascadia but I am not sure it would feel inclusive to people in Idaho and Montana. Also, British Columbia is up in the air, and I am uncertain about Northern California as well. Of course, there are not official chapters in California, Idaho or Montana, so "jurisdiction" is less of an issue to me than BC, which IS within Wikimedia Canada. Actually, I had not given much thought to Alaska. This kind of goes back to that original argument... strict borders vs. opt-in. People can choose to participate in this chapter regardless of where they live, AND they have every right to participate in multiple chapters. I just think we should be realistic and assume that most of our activity will take place in Seattle and Portland (and possibly Vancouver and/or San Francisco if they are considered chapter territory). --Another Believer (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I see no problem in having overlapping jurisdictions because participation will always be opt-in. The primary purpose of this chapter is to support the metropolitan centers in the region, which are Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. The reason why these cities are the focus is because they are close to each other and because those are the most likely places for Wikipedians to be able to find and organize themselves. Other Wikipedians in the region could join Cascadia if they have some need to join and organization and this group seems relevant to them, but if they see a better option then they should take that option.
I see no problem with overlapping jurisdiction. Wikimedia Canada loses nothing by having extra support for one area of its Wikipedians. Just recently I talked with en:user:OhanaUnited, the coordinator for the education program in Canada, and he said it would be great to have nearby support for Vancouver because he lives 2000 miles away in Toronto. We can talk more about this with other Canadian people, but I cannot immediately imagine why anyone would want the three cities to not collaborate if they understood the geographical proximity to each other and their distance from every other city.
The ideal situation for chapters is that whenever there are enough Wikipedians to form their own organization then they should. Having a Wikimedia Cascadia does not preclude any organization in any other place.
Cascadia is a large region and if there is enough interest in having a Wikimedia chapter here then we could help make it. Canada is huge - their chapter needs more organizational support and people in Cascadia could join to give that to British Columbia. If British Columbia were it own country, then at 944,735 km2 by area it would be the 30th biggest country in the world. If Cascadia were its own country, then at 1,384,588 km2 it would be the 20th biggest. See en:List of countries and dependencies by area. No one is hurt and everyone benefits by having more Wikipedians organize in this region. There is no reason to introduce politics to discourage collaboration among nearby places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Including British Columbia in WM Cascadia is OK with me if that is OK with our friends in the existing Canadian chapter. Overlap seems like a good way to do this, I agree that we're not likely to be in direct competition. Can you ask for a formal resolution from the Chapter to confirm that this arrangement is acceptable to them? We want to be good neighbors (: --Pine 20:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I intend to do this, but first I want to sort out who is interested in this project at all. The request really should come from people in Vancouver, and I more represent Seattle. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
So, should we submit a request for comments by posting a note over at Wikimedia Canada? WikiProject Canada and WikiProject Vancouver? --Another Believer (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To request feedback from Wikimedia Canada, perhaps we could post the following notification at the talk page for the chapter and/or on individual members' talk pages? Also, Wikimedia Canada has a separate website; does anyone have a login to post the notification there as well?

Comment Organizers of the proposed chapter Wikimedia Cascadia request feedback from Wikimedia Canada participants, specifically regarding the possible overlap of coverage within British Columbia. Please feel free to read, and contribute to, the ongoing discussions at the Wikimedia Cascadia talk page. If you have any other thoughts or concerns apart from the topic of jurisdiction, your additional comments are welcome--just start a new thread! Thank you for your participation.

Feel free to make changes or suggestions. I would like for the invitation to be general enough that people feel they can comment in any of the sections at the talk page, or even start their own. If we get to a point of legalities, bylaws, organizations, etc., it would be helpful to have support and assistance from our already established neighbor chapter! --Another Believer (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington + Oregon ?[edit]

At least until we obtain feedback from Wikimedia Canada, perhaps we should focus our efforts on Washington and Oregon. Whether or not Cascadia 'officially' covers BC or California, Wikipedians from both regions would be more than welcome to participate. Also, in terms of legal matters, I imagine forming an international organization would be much more difficult than establishing one that operates solely within the US. --Another Believer (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Education Program[edit]

See Wikimedia Cascadia/Education Program, which should be expanded to display past and current collaborations, results, stats, success stories, etc. I added a short blurb about my current project with PSU (hopefully more details to come soon, once the project wraps up). If there are other Education Program projects in the Cascadia region that should be described, please expand or drop a note on the talk page. It is important that we record the results of project within the region. --Another Believer (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I added some links to other projects. I have contacts of some other teachers in the region who have done things in the past but never reported anything. I think that I would like to leave undocumented events alone and just resolve to document events from now on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikimedia Elections[edit]

Voting for 2013 Wikimedia Elections has begun. Details can be found through the voting page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT[edit]

Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg Wikimedia LGBT
Wikimedia LGBT is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework here at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

--Another Believer (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2014[edit]

Any thoughts on possible representation for this group? I'm not sure which groups qualify. --Another Believer (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that unrecognized groups are not invited to this event, so I guess it is moot for now. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Another Believer (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)