Talk:Wikimedia user groups

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Wikimedia User Groups)
Jump to: navigation, search

Some points[edit]

You can consider placing some time bound requirements to a User group, that a certain group has to be X time in existence, before seeking formal approval.

Also, you can use example like the groups already on Meta, even deletionist Wikipedians might qualify. Theo10011 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Theo, Thanks for the suggestion, we might incorporate the time requirement if the number of unsuccessful user groups spirals up. I am not sure that any of the groups on Meta would or would not qualify as examples, but if the deletionists do offline activities (at least meetups), they sure can apply. Best regards,--Bence (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Plans[edit]

"Bear in mind that you must have goals that echo those of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its activities should not stray from these tenets."

This sentence muddles goals and mission, and introduces the otherwise undefined term "tenets". "Tenets" are more often associated with the beliefs of a religious or philosophical organisation. Better might be, "Bear in mind that you must have goals that are compatible with the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your activities should be consistent with that." Eclecticology (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

ChapCom = AffCom, 1 User Group[edit]

The page still says ChapCom instead of AffCom several times. And: Which is the one user group already exsisting? Thanks! :) --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nicole, good catch! The Chapcom has just recently been renamed, but I updated the page. There are currently no "recognized" user groups, I know of two being planned, the Munich meetup group and the Chinese group listed on the page. Best, --Bence (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Bence, that was fast! :) I am preparing a page on DE WP to inform the community about the chance of having their groups officially recognised and was wondering what this 1 already recognised group was. Cheers, --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool! Let me know if anything is unclear or confusing, so we can make it better. --Bence (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why become a WUG ?[edit]

Hi,

From time to time, I followed the pages about the WUGs ; there is still a big question : « why apply to become a WUG » ?

Since september 2008, the NCO (Non-cabale de l’Ouest roughly translatable in « non-Cabale of the West [of France] ») is de facto a WUG. We are a bunch of wikimedian who meet every tuesday and some over days in Rennes and some over cities and who do some projects (see the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report 2010-11 or the Wikimedia France reports for instance). In brief, we meet nearly all the Requirements for future user groups (except we don't have a structure, aside as an informal subgroup of Wikimedia France). But why take the Step 4: Apply for recognition ? What could be the benefit ? (beside « using the Wikimedia trademarks and to get grants »). I think the pages should be more explicit/precise.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vigneron,
I think the main benefit for a user group is greater recognition, which would allow them to be more effective locally (it is easier to approach someone if you are officially supported by the Wikimedia movement, as opposed to being a random editor). This benefit is definitely larger, and more important in countries where there is currently no chapter that can provide the institutional background, trust and resources.
Being a WUG is optional, there are no institutional drawbacks from not being one (individuals can also request grants and trademark agreements) apart from the international recognition, therefore it is really up to each group to decide if being a WUG would be beneficial to them even if only at a symbolic level.
Best, --Bence (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming of Wikimedia User Groups[edit]

Hi all,

I wanted to bring to your attention a discussion here on Meta on the way thematic organizations are named, which could end up being a basis for a similar naming guide for user groups. Given that the proposal would affect user groups, please let us know your thoughts on the matter at that page.

Thank you. –Bence (talk) (AffCom) 12:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Signing agreements[edit]

I've specified "incorporated user group" in "The group should have a contact person" because I doubt unincorporated things can sign anything. I don't know if incorporated entities can not have a contact person/legal representative, so I guess this is mainly about providing a document? The section would use some clarification. --Nemo 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In case of unincorporated groups a responsible person has to sign the agreement in the name of the group. I've reverted your edit. Best, --Bence (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
To clarify a bit, I believe the Foundation is happy to sign trademark agreements with individuals, but even when it signs agreements with incorporated entities, nowadays, they tend to ask for a photo ID. –Bence (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I've no idea how agreements with an individual can extend beyond that individual, but thanks for the clarification and the revert. That passage still needs to be rewritten because it's very hard to understand. --Nemo 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It needs a bit of trust and the person in question to take responsibility for the group's actions. I've tried to clarify that paragraph a bit, let me know if it is better. –Bence (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's better. I've also split the single contact and identification bits in two paragraphs, because mixing them up was confusing. Thanks, Nemo 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Existing user groups, both legally incorporated (dark blue) and unincorporated (dark turquoise), planned user groups (green), and user groups in discussion (light blue) as of September 1, 2012.

I don't think the map (BlankMap-World6.svg nonetheless) is useful for the page that only have two groups currently, one of which are not geographical based group. Bennylin 12:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I removed the map until there is someone who comes up with a better (not blank) way to represent the groups. –Bence (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ghana[edit]

Why was Wikimedia Ghana converted to a User Group and not a proposed Chapter? Abbasjnr (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abbas, As far as I know it was to do with the size of the group. To start a chapter, one needs about 20-25 people, and when it takes a long time to gather such a community it might be a good idea to gain recognition as a user group first (which only needs 3 people) so the group can start supporting WM projects and work on further expanding in size. –Bence (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Abbasjnr (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Propose requesting a secondary contact[edit]

I suggest that all groups should have a primary contact and a secondary contact. People can leave the project, sometimes abruptly, which could be voluntary, or not so voluntary in the case of death or serious illness. While it may not be hard, in the case of established groups, to find someone else, this process sounds terribly ad hoc, so it would be better to simply request a secondary contact. (I attended an organizational meeting of Wikimedia New England yesterday. I think I heard someone mention that two names were needed to sign some documents, so perhaps this is already a de facto requirement, but if so, the requirements and the summary of contacts should be updated to mention the need for a second name, as well as adding the second name to the tables.)--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick,
Thanks for the suggestion we have relied on the same reasoning and that is why we require two people to sign the user group contract (and those two people will be the de facto people on record), and also that the group have information pages on wiki, where they could be contacted if the contactpeople on record do not respond (and frankly, if nobody watches those pages at least once a year to provide an update on their activities, than the group's recognition will not be extended). AffCom is having a meeting during Wikimania where I am hoping we can work a bit on synchronizing the written requirements with any de facto additions that have developed in the last year and update these pages: your suggestion to amend the text will be considered.
Thank you, --Bence (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreement not signed?[edit]

Wikimedians in Nepal is marked as Pending signature of user group agreement. We are not asked to sign any documents so far. Why is it pending by the way? --Ganesh Paudel (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Meetups framed as fundamental?[edit]

I'm uneasy about the fundamental prominence given to physical meetups in the opening definition of user groups: "Wikimedia user groups are groups of Wikimedia users who support and promote the Wikimedia projects in the offline world by organizing meetups and other projects." (my highlighting)

It might well apply to user groups that are closely defined by geography (e.g. Wikimedia Melbourne GLAM User Group, Hong Kong user group); but this type of user group is and will be only a proportion of them. Foregrounding the organisation of physical meetups so fundamentally seems inappropriate for such groups as Wikimedia Traditional Chinese Medicine User Group, or Arabic-speaking Women's User Group. One hopes that user groups will involve Wikimedians in themes that bring together Wikimedians who are dispersed over large (in some cases, huge) geographical areas; their work would need to be ongoing to have impact, not conceived around meetups. Tony (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Name should be standard?[edit]

I was exploring meta and I've realized that Category:Wikimedia User Groups contains pages with very different names. We have for example:

Some are redirects, but in any case this sounds a little bit caotic. I can understand that groups may have different names originally, but should't we try if possible to be more consistent with the title? Exploring meta is not very easy, you really don't understand we you find these differences if there's a good reason or it is just lack of coordination.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community User Group Nigeria[edit]

Hi,

I applied for the recognition of the above user group for Nigerian Wikimedians. Since the application, I've not received any information regarding its approval. Can anyone help? Wikicology (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Kindly change the logo Philippine Wikimedia Community User Group. Thank you.

Logo of Philippine Wikimedia Community User Group

--Filipinayzd (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Filipinayzd: Is it available in a transparent version? Ideally in SVG or PNG format. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This is the only format we have. However if anyone can reformat the file into SVG or PNG that would be great. --Filipinayzd (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Filipinayzd: Here you go: File:PhilWiki Community logo.png. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 07:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thnks a lot! -Filipinayzd (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Логотип Wikimedians of Bashkortostan User Group[edit]

В логотипе Wikimedians of Bashkortostan User Group неправильно указан код башкирского языка. Необходимо указать BA. BAK - это код баского языка. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Я извиняюсь. Что такое код для башкир? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
А можно линк на обсуждаемое лого? --Base (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo of Wikimedians of Uzbekistan Community[edit]

Hi! Can somebody update our logo to this one? Thanks in advance! --Ochilov (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Meeting[edit]

I will attend the Wikimania 2016, takes place in Italia. Is there any body here to share your experienment face to face with me?--Cheers! (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Republika Srpska is not a Republic[edit]

This user group is called "Republic of Srpska" but Dayton Accords, which are written and signed in English only, clearly name it Republika Srpska not Republic of Srpska. The incorrect name is used for political purposes by some, in order to forge international legal status to this part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wikimedia should not be a place where identities of legal persons are faked for political gain. The group should be renamed. 31.185.127.246 10:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is somebody going to rename this article? 31.185.126.8 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DeafWikiMedians[edit]

hi to alls, I'm a Deaf Sicilian.. I've a query on a group Deaf Wikimedians, but I think that it is inactive for quite some time.. is correct?? --SurdusVII 12:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal User Group omitted from list[edit]

Hi. Wikiversity Journal User Group was approved a while ago, but I still don't see it in the list on this page, and the list in questions seems to be transcluded but I cannot find any editable source text. How can it be added? Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it included now. Thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Recognition process[edit]

I have some questions about the recognition process for new user groups.

  1. The requirements say, "Three active Wikimedia editors". Does this mean that the three editors are founding members of the user group? Also, must they publicly identify their Wikimedia usernames?
  2. When the affiliations committee approves a user group's application, should an affiliation committee representative sign their application somehow? If they did, that would create a public trail indicating who on the affiliation committee indicated support. Beyond that, is there any need to name who on the affiliations committee approved any given application, or is the presumption that any one on the committee can speak for the entirety of the committee?
  3. What finally must be in place to give recognition? Is dual approval from both the affiliations committee and a WMF representative required, or is there something else that finalizes it? Can it be expected that some wiki-signature of a approval somewhere, perhaps on an application, finalizes the process?

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

EGalvez (WMF) you seem to be the WMF liaison with the affiliations committee and have been granting user group credentials on behalf of the WMF. Can you please respond to these questions, or signal someone else to respond? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)