Talk:Bay Area Wikipedians User Group

Logo ideas

Howdy folks,

While I was constructing a user box, I discovered that many of the other groups have unique logos.
Here are some examples:

  

  

Alternatively, there are some groups, such as the New England Wikimedians and the Wikimedians of Nepal who simply keep the meta logo as their own logo, but add text to the image.

I have hobbled together some of my own ideas for a unique Bay Area logo, but I would love it for anyone else to throw together their own ideas as well:

Again, these are just some thoughts, took me about five minutes playing around in Gimp for each of these designs. I am not a professional logo designer, I din't use any rules of lines or shading or logo design, I just eyeballed it. It would be great to see anyone else's idea, especially if anyone here is a professional designer.
Thanks, Guylaen (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that all elements are either from Wiki projects or from openclipart. Guylaen (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the ones including the bay or golden gate bridge - I think we maybe should avoid the bear since there are other californian chapters. E mln e (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking this about the bear as well, but it is also my personal favorite design....

But I suppose Monterey should probably get the bear, whenever they create a page, since the state constitution was signed here, haha. Or, if there is ever a California super chapter created. Guylaen (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If we went with the bridge, I should hope that a member of the group might have the artistic ability to draw their own version of it...

If we went with the map of the bay, I am concerned that people from just outside the Bay Area might be discouraged from coming to the meetups. Guylaen (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this creativity! Just checking, did you confirm this is in line with the Trademark policy? I have a strong suspicion that this is why the other user groups (ohio, LA) went with the full circle version, rather than the one with the WMF-logo adaptation.

I guess I never realized that there was a 'p' in the word Wikipedians in BAWUG! Effeietsanders (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, here at Https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy, the language simply states that we need to be a movement that “furthers the efforts of Wikimedia websites.” Guylaen (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the actual wording: “Any use should primarily further Wikimedia's mission.” Guylaen (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I, too, like the bridge best -- physical landmark and denotion of our work. I really like "Logo Proposal 12"; could we change one of the blue curves to green? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There used to be policy that prohibited the use of the Wikimedia logo in too-adapted form, but maybe that has become more flexible :) I do generally like the community logo as the basis for that. I do like the black silhouette bridge as it's clean and recognizable, but perhaps too detailed for a lot of uses? It feels that too much blue/green underneath may make it too crowded. In that sense, 12 is a good compromise for large-print use. However, the emoji-bridge from no.3 combined with the community logo instead of Wikimedia logo, and with a bit more white may be the most recognizable in small-print use. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

For the User Groups rule, it is rule 1.4.2, at the same link you sent me earlier:

"Chapters, user groups, and thematic organizations." Guylaen (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a sentence that is confusing to me though: "These groups enter into agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allow them to use certain Wikimedia marks."

The way that I interpret it is to read: "When the group becomes recognized, it can use the logo."

But please let me know if this "agreement" is specifically an agreement to use the marks. Guylaen (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey everyone, I've created a userbox for wikipedia You can find it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guylaen/Userboxes/BAWUG

I'm using the Wikimedia logo as a temporary placeholder. Guylaen (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Membership and voting process

Proposed membership and voting process

Context: Formal user groups need a clear process to join as member and elect organisers. The proposal was written by current organisers, @audiodude, @elanHR and @e_mln_e for comments and approval for the Bay Area Wikipedia’s User Group.

Please comment on this post or at the meetup next week!

--- Edited to reflect online comments and discussions at the June meetup

Members of the User Group

Members are active contributors to Wikimedia projects who want to be involved in organizing events and collaborations, and help with the user group operations. Members volunteer their time to:

• help run events;
• do outreach;
• teach editing skills;
• help with communication;
• help with user group editing projects;
• any other tasks related to improving documentation, policies etc.

And they have the right to:

• vote in annual elections for the organizing committee and other decisions related to the management of the user group, such as amendments to this document.

We envision members would volunteer on a need basis, from one or two events a year (Wikipedia Day, Wiknic) to a few hours every month depending on capacity.

One does not need to be a member to attend events.

Initial members group

The initial members group is composed of current volunteers who want to become involved in the user group operations. This group will be established at our June 2025 meet-up with a call for voting members, or by commenting on this proposal before June 15, 2025 and asking to join as member.

Members are identified by their handle on a wiki project of their choice and an email address. The list of members is kept by the secretary in an offline spreadsheet encrypted and protected by a password.

New members

At the monthly meet-up, the organizing committee reports on their activities for the month and explain the process, rights and duties of group members. Attendees who want to become members explain how they want to volunteer (such as helping during events, outreach, communication, improving user group documentation…). They should be active editors and sponsored by an existing member, suggested by the organizing committee. Membership may be denied by the organizing committee, for example if there are active safety concerns being investigated, active bans on a Wikimedia project or if these conditions aren't met.

Voting

Members are voting to elect the organizing committee, typically once a year. They also vote on amendments to the membership and voting process. Both members and the organizing committees can raise matters to be voted on.

Votes take place in an online meeting, held separately from the monthly meetup, to ease participation. Invitation will be sent a minimum of 2 weeks prior. Members can vote by proxy (no more than one proxy per person). Votes are not anonymous (raised hands).

The organizing committee is elected as a slate with a minimum of three members through an approval voting process.

Removing a member

Members may be removed after a year of inactivity in the group or for cause (such as blocks on Wikimedia projects or infringements to the safety and friendly space policy), but may reapply any time.

The organizing committee

The initial organizing committee is comprised of the three members who have been organizing the meetups: @audiodude (secretary), @elanHR (treasurer) and @e_mln_e (chair). The organizing committee is comprised of at least three active members holding the position of Chair/President, Treasurer and Secretary, and up to seven members. A slate of candidates is elected every year in October.


The responsibilities of the organizing committee include:

• Finding a venue for events and other logistics;
• Organizing monthly meet-ups;
• Applying for and managing grants;
• Being the point of contact for local and regional organizations wanting to establish collaborations;
• Posting events announcements on Wiki as well as on the mailing list;
• Establishing safety procedures and handling safety concerns, including making reports to the U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee) and taking appropriate training;
• Setting the outreach strategy for the User Group;
• Announcing and organizing elections once a year;
• Reporting on activities to all members;
• Writing a yearly report and grants reports as appropriate.

The organizing committee makes decisions based on a majority vote (50%), with a quorum of 50% of its members.

The organizing committee meets once a month or more often if necessary, and reports on their activities at monthly meet-ups and once a year in a document sent to all members.

If a member of the committee cease being able to participate or the committee is comprised of fewer than 3 members, earlier elections can be held.

Amending the voting and membership process

The above may be amended by a vote of the membership, based on a strong majority of 2/3 of voters.

E mln e (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi E,

Thanks for starting this! A few thoughts based on this draft:

• Voting threshold: distangling the voting process from membership is likely going to lead to issues when people become somehow ineligible for membership, etc. A simple approach would be to have one rule for who is considered a 'member' and then all members are eligible to vote.
• That brings us to the membership definition. It's currently a bit of a mix between an 'automatic membership' (anyone who participates...) and something you'd apply for. Personally, I would again suggest to keep it simple: You have a list of members, and people can apply to be added to that list. By default, this is granted if you meet (insert activity criterion). The organizing committee can decide to admit someone earlier, or reject if they have serious concerns. Someone can be removed from the roster for inactivity by the organizing committee, as a result of (repeated) violations of the Friendly Space Policy, or when they are not (no longer) in good standing with the Wikimedia movement (blocked on their main projects, under T&S sanctions, etc). This may need some detailing.
  • If you want, you could also go with 'candidate member' and 'full member'.
  • This general approach (you're not a member until you're admitted, and you remain a member until removed) excludes a lot of edge cases you'd otherwise may want to deal with: people who are unable to make it for a while due to disease, pregnancy, unfortunate circumstances. People who are great organizing committee members but unable to physically make it on Thursdays. People who cannot be a member for their own reasons (visa, anonymity, conflict of interest), etc.
• For the activity threshold, I would suggest to combine a percentage of activities (e.g. 20%) with an absolute number - where meeting either threshold would qualify you. This would allow you to continue if for some reason you have a dry spell without activities for a while. Does online attendance count?
• I would suggest that the organizing committee can always call elections to fill a vacant position. This allows you to welcome new active organizers aside from October.
• Who decides on the contents of this process, and any amendments? I would suggest the regular members, with 2/3 majority of those voting (rather than the entire membership).
• I would set majority and quorum of the organizing committee to 50%. No need to make things complicated, I suspect you'll do things by consensus most of the time anyway. 2/3 gets you into deadlock too easily for a small group.
• Did you think about the ability to remove a member of the organizing team? I imagine two processes: 1) allow the committee to call a new election by regular majority. Let the membership deal with it. 2) allow the committee to remove a committee member by supermajority.

Anyway, you can of course work out many more details, but these seem some common things that I've seen cause trouble elsewhere :) Effeietsanders (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We updated the proposal based on your suggestions :) E mln e (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I just need to do this for my own brain, copying the text from above:

Members volunteer their time to;

• help run events
• do outreach
• teach editing skills
• etc
• and have the right to vote in annual elections for the organizing committee.

Guylaen (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @E mln e:: per my in-person comments at our June meeting, I think there may need to be a little more specification on the slate-based election system proposed above. My recommendation: the winning slate should be chosen via approval voting; that is, everyone gets to raise their hand or mark their ballot next to every slate they approve of. The most popular (most approved) slate wins. A "choose-one" election ("first-past-the-post") for slates can result in vote splitting and other electoral malfunctions, but first-past-the-post elections are often the only type of election many folks know, so it's important to specify these things. -- RobLa (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"WikiData item not found" on page

"WikiData item not found" on page -- despite Q136779909 and link from item to here. How do we fix this? I would like to learn about this linkage. Mcint (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)