Talk:Wikimedia user groups
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.
- 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)
ChapCom = AffCom, 1 User Group
- 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)
Why become a WUG ?
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.
- 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
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.
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)
- 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)
Agreement not signed?
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?
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?
I was exploring meta and I've realized that Category:Wikimedia User Groups contains pages with very different names. We have for example:
- region + Wikimedians: New England Wikimedians, Egypt Wikimedians
- Wikimedia + region: Wikimedia Nepal, Wikimedia Mainland China
- Wikimedia Community User Group + region: Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil, Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan, Wikimedia Community User Group Greece...
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)