Talk:2011-12 Fundraising and Funds Dissemination process/Recommendations
Please remember to:
For older conversations you can see the archive index.
|Future of fundraising discussions - Index|
Guiding Principles discussion
Fundraising models/future discussion
Wikimedia Foundation resolutions
Wikimedia chapter statements
good work Sue Gardner
I thank Sue Gardner greatly. This (draft) report is very very revealing and needs to be disseminated widely. It explains a lot of things that I just didn't get before. Most of en:wp (from what I've read) thinks the word "community" means the wikipedia community only. They don't understand that when WMF uses the word, it's referring to the WMF community, and that editors from the "wikipedia community" have little to no input into the decisions made by the WMF board. That "chapters" are the "key" is amazing. I'm from the US and there is no US chapter, just one focused on New York City and one focused on Washington D.C. So are we effectively disenfranchised? I hope the WMF board accepts Sue Gardner's suggestions. Good work! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad you enjoyed the report. One thing I want to clarify, though, for you and others is that you seem to have misunderstand what WMF means when it uses the word "community". :) There are many communities encompassed within the Movement: the communities of Wikipedia, in all of the 280+ languages in which it exists; the communities of Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Commons, and the other projects, in all of the language in which they exist; the communities of chapters and donors and readers are all also important. The Foundation is inclusive; it is here to sustain the Movement and all the people who are involved in the Movement. As Community Liaison, I spend the bulk of my time talking to Wikipedians around the world, as well as volunteers from the other projects.
- The communities of editors from projects are a primary mechanism in forming the board; I have seen many of the members of the board prove very responsive to editor concerns. You do not need to belong to a chapter to voice your concerns or to interact with other Wikimedians; for instance, the annual conference (Wikimania) is open to all.
- However, if you want to belong to a chapter, chapters are volunteer driven initiatives, and you would be more than welcome to initiate a chapter if you want to. Step-by-step chapter creation guide discusses the process. There may also be one already in the works. You might want to talk to some of the people at Wikimedia United States Chapters Council to see where things currently stand on the forming of a chapter in your area. Several currently unrepresented areas seem to have strong drives. If yours does not, you may find like-minded editors at one of the many regional meetups. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- no, I don't know anyone who even edits en:wp never mind 25 people who want to form a chapter. In any case I'm not up to forming the necessary corroboration to be a chapter.
- Has Sue Gardner delivered her report, due March 9? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
From the archives:
- «I don't know whether Italy increased "more" than expected: you and Zack say no, Sue and Xaura say yes. I was just pointing out that there's no clear evidence to say what's being said. [...] Nemo 16:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)»
- «I'm sorry, but I don't buy the WikiStrike hypothesis without any evidence to support it. --Eloquence 04:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)»
Given the limited transparency and lack of accountability it's hard for the public to draw conclusions, but it seems Xaura was right: stats for Italy show 1.1 M$ in 2011-12; 0.9 the next; n/a in 2013-14; perhaps 0.8 in 2014-15 (campaign last month).
Quite a pity that decisions were made based on assumptions which proved incorrect. --Nemo 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)