Talk:Wikimedia Brazilian Group of Education and Research/User Group Proposal

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Rodrigo Padula in topic Proposal reapplied

On creation of the group[edit]

I think that is a good idea and I support anything that may improve content on Wikipédia. However, I would like to see a clarification on how exactly this group will be different from Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil. Both have similar reasons to exist, except for this one is a little more focused on universities as I could understand.

I also miss a public history of this group. It just popped out (AFAIK) with no public background. User groups should be more inclusive. We have to know what is going on so we can participate, learn with it.

Despite all good intentions I see on its creation, I think it can be a better idea to work together with existent user group. Perhaps we can stress the need of having more attention from users to be spent on this area. I am sure that if ideas are brought to community there will be participation, interaction and possibly approval of good ideas. I am a member of the existent group and I would love to participate and listen to the ideas that this group wants to work on.

Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Teles, the main goal of that new UG is to create a new group of people interested in participate and contribute to Wikimedia Projects through the development of educational projects, educational initiatives and researches in partnership with local and international institutions. Differently from the Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil that group will not keep the focus in on WIKI initiatives and in current very active contributors, the new group will focus on off line activities, engagement of new contributors, mainly from the Brazilian Universities and academy in general, supported by local and international partners. The Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil is more closed on long time contributors(friends that discussed and started the chapter's proposal some years ago, as we can see by the endorsements of that group) and have a lot of issues with community members, wikidramas and some people that are always fighting against some initiatives started or discussed there, like we saw during the migration of the to the UG, the Wiki Loves Earth and other discussions regarding the Brazilian Catalyst Program.
So, with that new group we will be able to move forward with the education program and many initiatives that don't depend directly from the community support or decisions(but we will work together and engage the community all the time) and other important issue is that the Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil did not published any schedule of projects, activities and reports, it is very inactive since the Affcom's recognition. About some similarities on both proposals, it is based on my contributions on both texts sent to AffCom. I tried to help a lot the other user group and tried to develop some initiatives there, but unfortunately nothing changed there during that time based on many issues. So I think that with that new proposal we can engage new members, new contributors and change some current issues inside the Brazilian movement. That new group will not split forces, IMHO it will bring new forces and new minds to cooperate with the movement and for sure, new institutions interested to move forward with many projects regarding Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia Projects.
Thanks by your interest on that proposal and discussion. Keep in touch Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is not precise that Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil is so limited. It is not limited at all. Half of objectives of both groups are the same, including working with Education Program on universities. If they have the same objectives, I don't understand how this creation can not be considered conflictive.
There was never a rejection of any proposal as there was never a proposal. Could you link here please a proposal that was rejected? I have already told you that you have good ideas and you need to share it with others publicly and not only offline.
We are in a moment of transition with community in Brazil. Whether Brazil Catalyst Project will be kept or not, things will definitely change in a way we don't know and I believe it is expected that people wait a little until things are defined. And user group has helped with that change at request of members of Catalyst Project in many ways. I still keep with the idea that any difficulties you perceived on current user group, will remain on any other if we change change the name of it. I think you are overpowering members that proposed current user group. If you a have a good idea and publicly present it to community, people will support and help the way a community can. But you never did so.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is a heavy mistake on saying that Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil focuses only in “on wiki” initiatives. Historically, the team that conducted the discussion of a chapter were compromised with outreach activities. This low active period since the failure of the last chapter request was crucial to help the community to reorganize itself. The User Group's establishment was part of this moment.
Definitely, I am not convinced that we need another user group in Brazil to take care of this specific area. If we had a large, very well established and long-term community engaged in Educational Program in Brazil, it could be considered one reason to divide the group into two parts, but, currently, it is not true. Even in this scenario, I would request more motifs to support such drastic decision of withdrawing the Education Program from our User Group’s scope. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Until now we received 20 endorsements of people (teachers, researchers, contributors and members of institutions) that are really interested to move forward with that proposal and that group. They are not only signing a document of interest but they are signing with the compromise to really do activities and cooperate with the Wikimedia Projects. I think that we can't take in consideration only what Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil CAN DO, but what the group is really doing and the current status of planned activities and results of past activities.
We are waiting comments from AffCom regarding that proposal but independently of the final result regarding the affiliation we are moving forward with projects and activities, mainly with the focus on formal recognition from the local academy, CNPQ and CAPES. We have many ideas and many people very interested in keep moving, we cant just wait things get organized and the Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil finally create a proposal of activities for the next months. As you can see there are a lot of proposed and planned user groups in countries where we have chapters and other groups. The fact of having a group or having a chapter cant be a valid argument to create barriers for a new group. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think your argument is right when states The fact of having a group or having a chapter cant be a valid argument to create barriers for a new group.
At the same time I ask myself:
what your proposal has to do with the Brazil Catalysis Program? Because it (the proposal) looks like a mixture of goals from WUG Brasil and the WMF's program (I might be using the wrong term because the partership). It'd be good to hear/read some thoughts from Oona as well (for this question and the last one).
Why do you need approval from WMF/Affcon if you already got it from local (in Brazil) institutions (universities and academic supports)? If you'll, as you did state above moving forward.
Also, how your project will __interact__ in the present ecosystem where the WUG Brasil and the Catalyst Program both have a role at this very moment?
Before I forget, where is, in your opinion, the actions's lack from all those involved in activities in Brazil? I think it is good to share such impressions publicly.
Good wikimania for all of you and please keep this discussion alive near and away from keyboard. --Jonas AGX (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello Jonas AGX thanks by your comments. That proposal was created by me as a contributor and discussed/improved with the support of many people that endorsed it.It's not related or depends of the Brazilian Catalyst Program, but, it is a good way to keep the education program moving forward since we have many people interested and endorsing that proposal.Based on the last meeting in São Paulo, the program is ending next month or will be restructured(and we dont know when, who and what will be planned for the next months/years), Ação Educativa did not defined yet if they will stay working as a WMF's partner and that's a big problem for the Education Program because we planned and discussed many activities for the next semester, my decision was to not wait what will happen until there because we have a lot of teachers and students engaged working hard to improve or start initiatives during the second semester.
IMHO the problem is that we are working always as individuals and not as a organized group with strategies and mid/long time plans Rodrigo Padula (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Lists full of names do not mean adherence. We know it very well because we have lists with more than 100 users supporting the Wikimedia movement in Brazil but only a few people are really engaged. I would like to see the people that signed this proposal defending the need of a separate group for Education Program, here, in this discussion.
I repeat the question made in the mailing list: What do you can do in a new user group that you cannot with the current one? In addition: Do these professors were presented to the user group? Do they know there is an established group with very experienced volunteers that are able to support them right now?
As Jonas said, there are many possibilities to create a new organization related to Wikimedia in Brazil and we will be satisfied to support any initiative, but I cannot agree with a new user group that is created only to contest the current one. That do not add any improvement in the capacity of the community to organize itself.
The Education Program will move forward anyway, because our user group is interested on it and is working to improve it. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable and cruel to strike from us, skilled volunteers with a strong involvement and compromise with the Wikimedia Projects and the Education Program, the right to coordinate and participate in the program based in no powerful reason. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
As you said "we are working always as individuals" -- create a new user group now is like to put that problem away without a real solution. Volunteers willingness is too expensive to play on it re-recreating things.
Your proposal, as you also said, "... is a good way to keep the education program moving forward", what are other ways? And what the comparative advantages of each one? It matters to ask and __answer__ it properly in order to promote a healthy program together with all these professors and institutions. You didn't ask me before but as I wrote below in reply to Tom: such program is welcome in WUG Brasil. You know since the beginning we (as WUG) are an open and flat group, where projects and volunteers are welcome to work out. --Jonas AGX (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Education program in Brazil results[edit]

Beyond not seeing any necessity of another user group for this specific activity that can be done through the recently formed user group, as pointed out above, I would like to see a comparison on the goals and results of the education program through the catalyst program in Brazil - this can include mine results, which I openly can say it is not worth invest more money for several reasons, but things can have improved after I quit. (Well, I think the same for the catalyst because of the lack of results, but let's discuss this in another place.) Actually, doing such kind of activity not only can be done through the actual Wikimedia Brasil user group, but that would help to strength them having volunteers participating of a practical project with a beautiful mission, i. e., increase open education resources of high quality and involving students and professors to make this happen! --Tom (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm also willing to see that results (old and new ones). In a scenario where the Education Program is kept alive the WUG Brasil (Wikimedia User Group Brasil) is open for such activities and volunteers to run it. --Jonas AGX (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

What or who was the main catalyst for the actual Wikimedia Brasil user group?[edit]

Guess. I'll give a sweet. --Tom (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Working together[edit]

Is it possible to both groups work together? If it is, how? I see a lot of arguments pointing out that shouldn't exist another group but no ideas to get everybody together. Also, it's important to clarify that Education Program is not a property of Brazilian WUG to be done exclusively by their auspices. States that is one of their goals points that exists a common area and we should work together. Is it possible to someone link where Brazilian WUG is developing their plan to Education Program? AFAIK there's only an intention but such proposal was created with no open involvement from community, so it's impossible to understand how to work together and if it is possible somehow.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply


  1. --Tom (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) This can be perfectly done through the recently created user group. Please, no more divisions. Let's work together and learn to live with the diversity.Reply
  2. CasteloBrancomsg 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Per Tom. Brazil Program is running the Education Program in the country during the last two years. Volunteers agree to run it for now on. See "Applied objectives" #9 and #10 in the proposal for the already existing user group. There is absolutely no advantage in creating another group for doing this same thing.Reply
  3. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Per reasons exposed in the discussion page and in the mailing list. I do not agree with a division in the community and there is nothing that a new user group could do that the current group is not able and interested to.Reply


This section and the section above, was removed from the content page in other to not appear anything negative about the propose.

This comment below is about "Endorsements" and "Oppose" sections.

The group is clear divided, force a union between the WUG recently created with this new-new group is not productive. And the WUG already killed another group, that made the existence of activities in Brazil no existent. I'm sure why they are trying to create a opposition to this group, this a concurrence, they want to rule the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil, and stablish the "true leaders", and this a threat. But, one question, they are truly capable to do at least one of the "Applied objectives"? They will run the Educational Programme? How? Where is the draft, goals, strategy...

In another hand, why the guy that shoved the idea of ​​WUG using all his volunteer and staff hours to destroy the previous organization are now creating another group very similar, but with another members? This members, will run a programme in their free time as volunteers? Why they are not doing this now? GLAM, partnerships with universities, institutions, cities, states and the federal government to training educators, institutions with a research group with the recognition of CAPES and CNPq... this sounds fishy, this was the reasons that Wikimedia Brasil (2008-2013) tried to stablish a NGO in Brazil, because this type of activity was out of our league, as this requires a legal institution, and they don't mention anything about that. And looks like that "they" are trying to create a super infrastructure as they will "Develop support materials to train educators and collaborators;//Create a technical team to develop tools, mobile apps, offline use of Wikipedia (Kiwix), bots, filters, collection and analysis of data and the contribution to the development of the Wikimedia projects;//Develop a communication plan (supported by tools) to integrate and distribute project results in and out of wikis." and another things that requires a number of staffs, 10-15 at least, plus resources to accomplish this goals, and this goals include a bunch of trips (national and international ones), so, how much money we are talking about? How much money of donation will be invest on that? Who will control that? Where are their designated group to control that? Where's the by-law of this association? How much power is reserved to the proponent? Where is the discussion about this goals, rules, plans...? Someone that already sign know how to answer?

And why both groups are disputing the ownership of a failed programme? Is because of the money involved? Trips? Status? Could someone clarify why are you trying to keep going with this?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, some points commented by you here will/should be discussed during the meeting about the future of Wikimedia Brasil. I agree with you that some initiatives cant be polarized in one group/person and that's why I wrote and supported the proposal of the Brazilian Wikimedia Group initially. This new proposal is not a group division, the first group was approved almost 1 year ago, nothing changed and I was not able to engage people there, since that group is carrying many problems as pointed by you regarding the chapter creation and other problems, I decided to work in this new proposal, to keep the teachers, students and researchers away from that problems and discussions, great part of the discussions are going to personal problems and it's not very productive for the Wikimedia Projects and Movement. This group has an special focus on education, we will not work on the other general projects and discussions like the other group. That proposal is not related to money or to chapter creation, it is aiming only to create a new environment for people interested in education to cooperate with each other developing researches contributing to the Wikimedia Movement. We will not need staff, the idea is to work in partnership with universities, teachers and students in a cooperative way. We are applying to AffCom only to be recognized as partner and official members of the Wikimedia Movement, essentially we don't need money to do many of the objectives listed on our proposal and if necessary we can apply through the local university and partners to get sponsorship for scholarships from CAPES, CNPQ and etc. The proponent(me) will have only the power to be a contact between the group and AffCom(but they can talk directly without an intermediate) and the power to be deeply criticized to wrote and submit that proposal here :-), basically, we are all on the same level of hierarchy Rodrigo Padula (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Proposal withdrawn[edit]

Thanks to everyone who signed and supported this proposal!

Based on all problems and questions around the the transition period of Wikimedia projects to the community in Brasil and many conversations with community members and AffCom, I chose to withdraw this proposal.

Never was my intention to generate sense of competition with other groups and projects, so, to confirm that argument, I decided to not move forward with this proposal.

Thanks again!!

Rodrigo Padula (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Proposal reapplied[edit]

Based on the lack of activities after the end of the Brazilian Catalyst Program, many conversations with people that endorsed that proposal and some AffCom members I'm reapplying that proposal to AffCom. Over the past months I have developed various activities and contacts to continue the proposal, including national implementation of projects to be started from next month.

Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply