Talk:The Wikinewsie Group

Sign up

Why should i sign up? I can not overlock what this is going to be. In my eyes, what is needed, is a simple forum for all wikinews-workers at a common, neutral ground. Did we have something that way, before? --Itu (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no multi-language discussion place. This is not actually intended to be that. The Group will not interfere with local policies. (de.wn cannot tell en.wn what policies to have, and vice-versa.)

One goal is to facilitate media accreditation. In the case of the Olympics and Paralympics, such accreditation to cover these events needs a media organization to basically sponsor the reporter. At the moment, this can basically only be done by chapters or the WMF, which requires them to act like media organizations and become involved in governing policies for the individual Wikinews projects in terms of who gets selected and why. This also applies to seeking permanent media accreditation for organizations. If I want media accreditation for the Australian Parliament, it is much easier to have the backing of a media organization than it is to be a freelancer.

A second goal is to facilitate outreach efforts by encouraging the organizing of workshops. This will make things easier to coordinate in many ways, by better encouraging this sort of activity. We should be able to get the rights to use WMF related trademarks when doing this because we would basically be a chapter of sorts. It also goes towards conferring credibility when talking to people because of that.

A third goal is to allow independent lobbying and protection of journalists. Committee to Protect Journalists shows how dangerous being a journalist can be. This is not something that other project contributors generally have to deal with. Media laws are also being talked about that would require Wikinews to become a registered media organization. Without the ability to possibly be such an organization, which I cannot see the WMF actively seeking on the part of individual projects, our freedom to do original reporting may be curtailed because we will not have formal access to those protections.

Can this be independently coordinated across projects outside an official organization? Maybe, but that would require WMF involvement and a lot of local interference in projects. That is not something I think most of us as journalist want. --LauraHale (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wikinewsie.org is sort-of there. That started out as simple 'social engineering'; the WMF flat-out refused to get involved with people having @wikinews.org email addresses, so we settled for @wikinewsie.org, and permission to create/use derivatives of the Wikinews logo, for the purposes of obtaining news content and doing off-wiki work (We can't exactly work with a major press release that's under a 48-hour publication embargo, and that is exactly how many mainstream publications can write more-detailed reports.).

With accreditation being obtained for the 2012 Paralympics, it has become more-apparent that we need to be able to operate cross-language, and not have to beg chapters to help work on accreditation. That's an ad-hoc solution, falls down easily, and is always going to lose out to Wikipedia-specific initiatives.

In short: It's high-time we started having a more-professional set of "back office" functions. --Brian McNeil / ^talk

As you have described it before, the goal you are aiming at is rather limited. Accreditation is only one thing. In the first place, Wikinews needs a sharper profile within the current media landscape. Blogs have taken over from media platforms that dominated citizen journalism back when Wikinews was founded. I wonder whether you have got an idea how to make Wikinews fit better in today's journalism and blogging environment? Wikinews' mission should not be to only re-tell what commercial media have told before. Also, I do not think that the name "Wikinewsie Group" is fit for your purpose because it does not really sound serious. Something like "Wikinews Group", or "Wikinews Team" etc. would be more apt.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews —at least, English Wikinews, which is what I have first-hand experience of— doesn't have a problem with its profile within the media landscape. We're small but taken seriously outside the wikimedian community, a situation that has grown more pronounced as mainstream media decline.

You say "Wikinews' mission should not be to only re-tell what commercial media have told before." We agree. We highly value in-the-field and investigative journalism, and that's where the Wikinewsie Group comes in: it's meant to provide support for reporters doing in-the-field and investigative reporting rather than synthesis.

Tbh, I'm not worried about the name "Wikinewsie Group" being taken seriously — by and large, anyone who isn't already turned off by the "wiki" part probably won't have a problem with the "ie". Other projects in the new media have far more outlandish names. --Pi zero (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Two things about the name: 1) We may have to change it and it is currently not set in stone. If you read some of the pages about other thematic organizations applying for recognition, if you read the policy pages set out by aff-comm, this becomes apparent. We will not have an official, formal name until we get approval by aff-comm for it. 2) Wikinewsie builds off the brand that has been established by English and Spanish Wikinews already, and has been in use since 2007 to support these languages. It demonstrates a history of project work outside editing that should assist in our application because it demonstrates past activity by founding members.

The name issue at this point is not the big deal. What we do need is interested parties to start engaging in work related to our stated goals: Holding workshops, working with educators, developing learning materials, developing tools for project use, identifying areas for potential lobbying for media reforms, increasing participation and actively supporting quality original reporting. --LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, and thank you very much for your initiative in founding the new group. I've been holding workshops with teachers and other educators explaining Wikipedia in the classroom and in university since 2010 in Germany, and I would very much like to bring Wikinews to the classroom, too. I'm also a sysop on German Wikiversity, so I know about the problems facing the smaller sister projects. I've urged other Wikinews users to join.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, I suspect the name will be changed based on doing the research by reading other proposals and the guidelines. (Hence, no registering the name. No bylaws posted, no logo created and no organization registered until this step is done.) We really want this to succeed and following the steps it the best bet. I do want group in the name at the end of the day, because I do see all the Wikinews projects as essentially a group of independent media organizations with their own standards and practices who work together to support each other.--LauraHale (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Advisor

Hi everyone, I just sign in the future board as advisor because I'm currently board member of Wikimedia Chile and I can't accept another "high" role in other organization -lack of time-. If the "advisor" role doesn't exist in the future, I'm still interested to follow this group as a member. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Strategic discussion?

I'd be interested to see a discussion here about specific issues about tools / services that wikinewsies need, as well as a list of topics that came up in the Open Globe discussions, and in the recent debates about WN activity (in various languages). –SJ talk  23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither OG nor the recent attempts at sororicide against Wikinews has anything to do with The Wikinewsie Group. OG was about philosophy of how to run a wiki news site, and The Wikinewsie Group has no interest in telling any language's Wikinews how to run itself. The attempted sororicide was based on not understanding and not valuing news, neither of which should be an issue for anyone involved in The Wikinewsie Group. --Pi zero (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Affiliate groups cannot be involved in dictating local policy. This is something the application makes quite clear. Beyond that, we have no interest in doing so. We think English Wikinews, Spanish Wikinews, Catalan Wikinews, French Wikinews, Russian Wikinews, Polish Wikines, German Wikinews all have contributor bases that are quite good at managing their own local policies and communities. This is intended to compliment existing work by assisting in the production of original reporting, by providing a cross language method of cooperation to increase participation and develop support materials, to lobby governments seeking to make more restrictive media laws and to fundamentally protect our journalists. This has nothing to do with the WN closure debates. The issue of media accreditation issues and having to talk to work through the WMF for high level media access is something that we have discussed with them. Myself and Bidgee met with Philippe and two other WMF staff members in November 2012 at the WMF offices to discuss this. We also sent e-mails on this topic to the WMF in early March when the issue again came up. The timing is coincidental, as the timeline should make clear. --LauraHale (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify something about that meeting, actually. I fear that there could be some misunderstanding based on how you said it above - while we did discuss accreditation, that conversation was extremely narrowly focused (on you and your accreditation for the Olympics/Paralympics). Your sentence seems to imply that it was a more general conversation, which it was not. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi and thanks for the clarification. I thought Bidgee and I had discussed the issues regarding media accreditation and the need to do through the WMF, and other possibilities for alternative funding and accreditation options specifically as they related to our Paralympic efforts. This conversation, while not directly about the creation of this particular case, was the major impetus for further behind the scenes discussions on the part of myself, Bidgee, Brian, Pi Zero and others about how we can go forward. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• LauraHale, I appreciate your efforts. But I'm not sure whether these are the right priorities. Do we really need another kind of NGO for journalists? Most important are in my opinion: Attracting more readers and editors, improve technical issues, reflections on wikinews' profile (what can make this project unique?). Therefore criticism against the project (the clossure debate) should be taken seriously (at least criticism based on real arguments). Some of these aims (e.g. promoting original reporting) are intended by the group, others are not. It's not a question of dictating policies. However, about discussing the current fundamental problems among editors of all active wikinews communities to find ways to improve the project. I don't assume the wikinews communities you have mentioned above are active enough. Maybe the group can iclude these stratecical and essential points by creating forum for cooperation among international wikinews communities. --SonicR (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the creation of a general journalist NGO. This is the creation of a media organization to assist journalists who specifically operate on Wikinews projects in getting on project support, such as having an accrediting body for media coverage for events like the Olympics/Paralympics, attaining journalist visa and getting permanent media spots in places like Parliament. No such infrastructure currently exists to support Wikinewsies in these goals and it has reached a point of impairing our ability to engage in original reporting. This was the major impetus in creating this organization as we need the formalized structure. Beyond that, as detailed on The Wikinewsie Group, we have created a public and open mailing list on GoogleGroups at wikinewsie and IRC room at #wikinews-group as forums for this group. --LauraHale (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to dwell on the points SonicR has mentioned. I think, too, that promoting and supporting original reporting for Wikinews and supporting community outreach is a goal worth pursuing. But I also think that a thematic organisation should do more than that. First, it should be truly international, not just centred on the English and the Spanish language version. And then, it should indeed take critisism seriously and work towards bringing Wikinews out of the niche it's in. Too few editors, too complicated and too slow a publishing process. Etc. Could you please address these issues? – Thx!--Aschmidt (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Thematic organisations are not meant to be exclusive, and indeed there can be several on the same theme or topic. If you are interested in supporting Wikimedia reporting efforts along a different tangent, you are more than able and I encourage you to create such an thematic organization. Following that, we could explore synergies between both organizations. We were very cognizant of the need for international support, and talked to a number of people before this even came to meta. At the present, there is a good mix of international supporters from over 10 different countries who speak at least 6 different languages. It makes sense to start small and then grow from there. But like other thematic organisations (or chapters for that matter), its purpose is not going to be to dictate policy to communities and tell them how to do things or what to do. The Wikinewsie Group will aim to support local Wikinews projects, not direct or control them or set policies for them. Hopefully having both offline and online activities, by professionalizing the backend, will enable these communities to have a structure which will enable them to thrive, improve editor retention, diversify the contributor base and improve the volume of overall news production.--LauraHale (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As you have deleted my comment I made on removing me from the list of those interested, I would like to repeat it here. I think that the group as described so far is too much focused on U.S. matters, it is not a truly international thematic organisation. I do not agree that your present setup is sufficient. I would like to compare it with Wikivoyage which set out as a German association, but has by now become a truly international body taking into account the peculiarities in all language versions of the Wikivoyage project. This is why I would see the Wikinewsie Group rather as a User Group than a Thematic organisation.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikinews member yourself, I assume you value the same principles we do. :) Neutrality, verifiability, etc. Thus, I am very confused by your comment. Who from the list is the USA that you worry about USA control? What is USA centric about this organization? It is unclear.

Beyond that, the organization does not need to be truly international. The scope is up to the people involved in organizing it. Wikimedia CAT is of little international interest, appealing to a limited geographic scope in Europe. Wiki Project Med Foundation is almost entirely being driven by people from the United States. Wikivoyage e.V. appears almost entirely Germany German in their initial scope. Wiki Education Foundation is only the United States and Canada.

We would be more than happy to work with you, the many of us from placed like the United Kingdom, Australia, Cost Rica, Mexico, France, Australia, Poland, Iceland who speak several languages including English, Icelandic, Spanish, Catalan, Russian, Polish, French and German. We would love to work with you if you created a similar thematic organization for German Wikinews because that scope works better for German Wikinewsies and their goals. :)--LauraHale (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about your point; I have withdrawn and won't join the group. However, I would like to point out that you still only refer to the English and the Spanish Wikinews projects in the resources box on the project page. I am not worried about a U.S. focus. I just don't think that a this makes a Thematic organisation; it's rather a user group. As to Wikivoyage, they seem to be orientied towards a more international stance by now, as I said above. I think this is the way it should be.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Can we reset this discussion thread? I'd certainly no intent to make people from any other language feel shut-out. How we got where we are, proposing The Wikinewsie Group, has started with enWN and esWN who make use of Wikinewsie.org resources.

[Cont'd after break...]

Break 1

Are there tools we'd like? Yes. I gave Sarah Stierch a whistle-stop tour round the 'spit, duct tape and bailing twine' we have yesterday evening. Part of that discussion gave the suggestion there is development work elsewhere on slightly-similar tools. It isn't, as some might carelessly think, "just switch to WordPress"; the page history feature of MediaWiki make it an excellent base Content Management System (CMS). It lacks the buttons to shuffle paperwork around a newsroom, though. Or, for that matter, readily-used features to make such.

My understanding is that TOG tried Semantic MediaWiki, and I've looked at that too. I think their experience reflected my opinion: "A sledgehammer to crack a nut". We don't need a massive workshop full of toolmaker's tools, we need simpler form and macro support; if the analogy suits, we need a collection of Lego bricks and other bits that guide news reports through a workflow.

Meta hasn't worked for cross-Wikinews coordination, there's more success asking nicely in IRC for an article to be translated.

Now, I can only speak from my rather Anglo-Centric perspective and experiences with English Wikinews. I watched Thai Wikinews end-up closed, I'd like to see it reopened somewhere down the line, which - if you look at is from an outreach perspective - would be most-easily done with, shall we say, the 'Thai diaspora'. But, we all know there simply aren't enough Wikinewsies to start that sort of process.

The next misconception that needs challenged is that "Wikinews is irrelevant." I disagree, as — I would hope — do the 10,000+ who've liked English Wikinews'  Facebook page. I strongly disagree with the calls to turn Wikinews into YAWNS (Yet Another Web News Site); it smacks of 'make-work', which — as-mentioned above — we utterly lack a streamlined workflow to process through to publication, and ultimately on into the archives. What makes Wikinews unique is its Original Reporting (OR), and I really, really don't want to see that suffer in order to deliver 'the same as everyone else'. I know not all language versions have adopted the same "firewalls" between content creation and content publication as enWN, or may-well not even have seen some of the buttons in-use.

I can see possible ways of improving more-mainstream coverage, and the journalism students previously assigned to contribute to Wikinews could probably have been better-inducted with a toolset to manage brief reports through the publication workflow.

But, whilst this might-well be an interesting side-discussion; and, The Wikinewsie Group a potentially-useful organisation in advocating for development work that benefits all languages, it's primary purpose — to me, anyway — has to be opening doors into parliamentary press galleries, sporting event press boxes, gallery and museum openings, reports and press releases provided "under embargo". That sort of access is the 'glass ceiling' Wikinews now faces, and it is the focus on OR and quality which makes up the solid foundations for the respect the project has in a wider community than might be represented in this discussion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Break 2

• I'm not sure your intent in asking this question — it boils down to "what tools to host" and "what were the Wikinews community issues that caused OpenGlobe fork and recent drama on meta".

    The tools would be for internal collaboration on original reporting for journalists to exercise protect their sources when carrying out original reporting. There is a need in a legal entity separate from WMF because the Group would be familiar with how original reporting works, and would be ready to do work in this specific field without additional load on the Wikimedia Foundation, both humans- and legal-wise.

    OpenGlobe brought some issues with project atmosphere on English Wikinews, which recent project closure attempts have nothing to do with directly as the applicants weren't active on the project any time recently; odds are they succeed in attracting, or might have been influenced by, the set of former contributors who failed to establish on Wikinews (which is harder with the deadlines typical for news reporting) and are biased against it. Nothing in this Group has to do with that atmosphere nor is involved with enforcing or altering it, as Pi zero said above, and leaves the atmosphere to local projects to decide.

    Pi zero has been working on proper new article wizard; my understanding is that his work is in JS on-wiki. Instead of saying "please RTFM this and that huge bits" in the beginning, an article wizard tool would walk the writer through all the requirements, potentially increase the rate of successful submissions for greater efficiency, and for newcomers to not be deterred from working on the project after 1, 2, 3, ... not-readied reviews of their submission.

Cheers. --Gryllida 12:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Section break

To try and address SJ's original question, there's a number of things have been looked at, and trialled, since obtaining wikinewsie.org back in 2007. Of some use was having a closed wiki which we can work on material that's under-embargo. Gryllida catches the main need at the moment, automation. The process of composing an article for Wikinews is quite different from an encyclopedia entry. Being able to walk people through that would be more-likely to result in reviewable copy. Then, there's that issue itself; keeping track of what parts of an article have been fact-checked against sources (which could-well be original reporting). I suspect many on enWN would rather like to try out the new visual editor sooner rather than later; and, request "a box of highlighters" so any copy not passing peer-review goes back with where there's uncertainty over content clearly visible.

I've even looked at semantic MediaWiki, but it's overkill. Wikinews could certainly benefit from some basic form-scripting support, though.

OpenGlobe, ... It was AGF versus Never Assume. If it has any bearing on the current discussion calling for all versions of Wikinews to be closed, it might-well be familiar to many who've been sucked into painfully-pedantic discussions which go nowhere. If you want to look at the closure drama, and some of its most-vocal supporters, the "badge" they're waving about is: "I got blocked on Wikinews! They wouldn't assume good faith." The far-smaller community hasn't the time to entertain discussions tht amount to How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On volunteering for the initial board

[Strike prior comment]

My interest is content, which I'm happy to advocate for from my 8-years experience on-project. I'm painfully aware of my own flaws, particularly compared to some of the others up as potential board members. I, in all honesty, don't think I deserve a position on a board of The Wikinewsie Group. But I cannot rest where the alternative is throwing my experience out with the bathwater. My desire with the project is, most-definitely, not Yet Another Hat; but, to be working with people who support taking the time to understand the unique value of a project I've ploughed a huge amount of work into.

I do content, I far-prefer doing that to "avoiding doing politics". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification

I mean, at Ar.WN Watercooler. I am a bit embarrassed that the Arabic project is not mentioned at all, while projects that were less acitve are. Yes, Ar.WN doesn't currently do original reporting, but this is because most of the time there's only one editor, and I think original reports must be read by someone else in a timely manner before they are published.

I believe training, including training materials, are of utmost importance. Do you think we could make use of Wikiversity and Wikibooks, respectively? --PICAWN (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a deliberate oversight. It was an accidental oversight. When doing notifications, I used the interwiki links on the sidebar at n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler and n:en:Template:Original reporting. I also used the mailing lists listed here. I did not in any way mean any disrespect to the Arabic speaking community or to exclude them. I assure you it was an accidental oversight, for which I am deeply sorry. (I did fail to contact the Hungarian Wikinews, because I could not acquire an account there.) --LauraHale (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess skipping over the Hungarian Wikinews is okay, because it's closed and can't even be edited (except by staff/stewards/global interface editors perhaps). ;) πr² (t • c) 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In the future, you can just go to all these pages, or use global message delivery on this list - Distribution list/Global message delivery/Wikinews. πr² (t • c) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Future activities - Icelandic Wikinews.

An Icelandic Wikinews in Incubator allready exsists - Go to the Main page. You can cross that one off your list of future activities.--Snaevar (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Or we could change it to "getting out of incubator". ;) πr² (t • c) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

Hi. I see the page currently has a section for supporters of this idea (The Wikinewsie Group#Supporters / potential members). Where might one register opposition to this proposed affiliated group?

I've recently re-read some past discussion about Wikinews and there seems to be some significant opposition to its continued existence as a Wikimedia project. Creating an official affiliated group would further entrench Wikinews as a member of the Wikimedia family, something that both Wikinews supporters and critics may not want. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The opposition that you yourself have, as a result of rigid focus of English Wikinews on shaping a community of independent content writers rather than those who get helped before they display interest in writing content, is absent at other language editions and I will discourage relation of it to the Group: the Group has international scope and does not govern individual language editions policies or atmosphere. Thank you. Gryllida 12:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really follow any of what you posted here. Before we set up a thematic organization (or rather, an affiliated organization), I think it makes sense to evaluate whether this is a direction we want to be headed in. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"Wikinewsie"

What does "Wikinewsie" and more specifically the -ie sufix mean? I'm just curious. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried a dictionary? :-) The English Wiktionary's entries for the demonym "Wikinewsie" and the diminutive suffix "-ie" should answer your question. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that Wiktionary entry does not match my understanding of the etymology. There seems more insight to be had from the redirect w:newsie. --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also n:Wikinews:Wikinewsies, though its content is likely only of marginal value. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, see what you mean — clarifies what a Wikinewsie is in case there was any doubt, but doesn't seem to offer any etymology. --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh. But "newsies" have nothing to do with us. In Spanish we call ourselves "wikireporters", which is easier to understand: it's people who write news articles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. In the en.wn context, though, this wouldn't work because it would label everyone as a reporter, which in our workflow is just one of the two necessary, high-status tasks required for successful news production (the other being reviewer). --Pi zero (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Funding

What are the group's plans regarding funding? In particular, is funding from the Wikimedia Foundation assumed? Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Never assume. :-)  We expect we'll be treated like any other thematic organization, with access to GAC.

We plan to apply for a startup grant through due processes to cover administrative startup costs like getting registered, setting up a bank account, basic server costs currently being covered by Brian McNeil. It's our understanding the startup grant goes through aff-comm. --Pi zero (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You already have access to the Grants program; it is not restricted to recognized affiliates.

It is correct that start-up grants can be had through the Grants program via an AffCom recommendation.

I am glad you acknowledge funding is not assumed. I would like to caution against incurring personal expenses with the expectation of reimbursement by a future grant; such a grant is not guaranteed, even if/when the group is recognized. If in doubt, it would be best to seek funding before committing to expenditure. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not at all offended, I do find the above caution obvious enough that it's puzzling you'd feel motivated to say it. Like telling a swimmer not to try to breathe while underwater; it's sufficiently out of the ordinary that there is probably some peculiar backstory explaining why it was said. --Pi zero (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blog about Wikinews experiment on Czech Wikinews

Hi, wikinewsies!

Two years ago I started an experiment on Czech Wikinews called historical news. Now I summed it up in my English-language blogpost for anyone who can be interested from non-Czech-language Wikinews. I don't think it is probable you will follow it, but maybe it can inspire you anyway.

Thanks. Okino (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a summary of the blog post to The Wikinewsie Group/Newsletter/5, which should be delivered around November 1. Please feel free to edit the summary if you feel it is inaccurate. --LauraHale (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

		Wikimedia LGBT+
		Wikimedia LGBT+ is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT+ communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework here at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

--Another Believer (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reopening discussions

Following the board's rejecting AffComm's recommendation to recognise The Wikinewsie Group, and some confusing communication regarding incorporation, I'm trying to re-open discussion on the matter. I've done so away from Meta, on English Wikinews, to enable local - and more-focused - discussion.

Restarting the process needs broader support than previously received. That means whatever we end up with has to meet the needs of more contributors and readers. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Translate meta page?

Are you interested in having the meta page setup to utilize the translation features of Meta-Wiki to help encourage involvement beyond English speakers? If so, please let me know, I would be happy to help facilitate that as a service from AffCom.  :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Ralgis (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think question should be asked just as what sections are stable and are they up-to-date. They all seems to be stable now, but i'm not sure about up-to-dateness. --Base (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on Wikimedia user group logos

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Affiliations Committee is requesting comments on proposed best practices for Wikimedia user group logos. The committee will seek community input until Saturday, May 24, 2014. After considering the community's input, the Affiliations Committee will publish on Meta-Wiki guidelines for Wikimedia user group logos.

There is already a standard format used by chapters, and that format is being applied to thematic organizations as well. Chapters and thematic organizations have also worked with Wikimedia Foundation legal in the past on custom logos. Wikimedia user groups may also create custom logos, and the new trademark policy allows for logos to be based off the community or Wikimedia Foundation logos. However, there remains a question of the best practice for standard user group logos.

Please make any comments or ask any questions on Meta-Wiki at Affiliations Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia user group logos.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on 23:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Please, someone teach that bot to sign messages in visible markup, not in comment. Thank you. Gryllida 08:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. What for? It's "Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee" that's playing role of a signature, IMHO. But compromising variant could be to replace the comment with a div with defaultly display:none class so those who need to see who has set bot to deliver message would be able to make that info visible with one line in their CSS.~But this should be somewhere at a proper talk page :) --Base (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The bot shows in hidden comments who initiated the message (in this case - me). This is by design as the messages are not always sent by the actual user or group that requested the message (which requires admin access). Was there a more visible message that you would like to see displayed in future mass-messages from AffCom? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would want something specific to be displayed in all cases. The relevant contributor ends the message with "on behalf of [Something like AffCom]", anyway. On the plus side, a real signature would let people know who to contact if they'd like to ask a question about the delivered message which is not suitable in the place where it was delivered. (See also the clogged talk pages phenomenon, where a part of the impression is communication from bots; I appreciate that this way of delivering messages is not entirely automated, but rather, only semi-automated.)

It might be a bit unfortunate that I'm not rising this concern with appropriate technical communities; I'm potentially too lazy to write a coherent introduction to the context - which is something you already know here. This suggests that I'm consciously wasting your time. Such is life; hopefully I would start sleeping more again at some point and do things more properly. Gryllida 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned the message was not suitable in the place it was delivered. Keeping in mind that AffCom has to reach out to about 100 pages at once, so MassMessage is a likely solution for delivery, where would you prefer these messages be delivered? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(I'd thought that was just an example of a reason for wanting to contact.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Not suitable in the place it was delivered" was about a question, not about the message.

For example, I, here, wanted to ask about format of signature. This question does not exactly belong to this thread. Was there a signature, I would more likely contact the sender on his/her talk page using the link provided. Gryllida 10:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A brief update and proposal

Hi everyone: in the past months (end of March) we, with Svavar Kjarrval, signed the UG (User Group) Agreement as two members of the UG. Now, we must start our activities and I think that LauraHale, as main proposer, could start the first activities in our group. We need understand the importance of this step (the sign): we are recognized by WMF and they are waiting for our results, so what can we do?. I shared a few ideas with Laura because I don't have time to get in charge them (now I'm a board member of Wikimedia Chile). Please, share your thoughts, ideas or whatever in this group, because we are the Wikinews(ie) community, and now we can build our own project Superzerocool (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Affiliations Committee call for candidates - September 2014

The Affiliations Committee is looking for new members. The committee's work requires communication with volunteers all over the World, negotiating skills and cultural sensitivity and the ability to understand legal texts. We try to get a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members.

Members are usually selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. The applications will be voted on by the current members not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisers, WMF staff and board liaisons based on the membership criteria. A final decision will be made by the end of October 2014, with new members expected to join on or around 1 November 2014.

Please read the full call for candidates for more information, membership criteria, and details on how to apply.

Best regards,
Carlos Colina
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 04:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Requests for comments on Wikimedia user groups approval process and agreements

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is requesting comments on the approval process and agreements for Wikimedia 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. The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee's responsibilities include approval of new Wikimedia user groups.

The committee will seek community input until Friday, May 1, 2015. The committee will then review the community's input, and publish the new process and agreements on Meta-Wiki. The committee will again seek community input approximately six months after any changes are adopted to gauge effectiveness and if any additional changes are necessary.

Please see the RFC page on Meta-Wiki for more information and to provide feedback.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Wikipedia's 15th birthday - get involved!

Apologies for cross-posting the below!

The 15th birthday of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia movement, is coming soon! We’re eager to make plans to celebrate on January 15, 2016.

As a way to kickstart planning around the 15th, there is a page on Meta for Wikipedia 15. Eventually, we plan for the page to have resources including:

1. Resources to plan events and meetups locally to celebrate the 15th.
2. More information on sharing birthday photos, videos, stories, Wikipedia content, and other media.
3. Tips for pitching to local media to cover your event.

Many of the sections on the meta page are blank for now, but we’ll be working with you to add more information to the page over the next few months leading up to the birthday celebration in January. Please feel free to add, edit, and discuss what you’d like to see for Wikipedia’s 15th birthday!

We look forward to celebrating with you!

-for the Wikimedia Foundation Communications team, JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.

Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.

Please find a bit more information on Meta-Wiki and do not hesitate to contact the Affiliations Committee if you have further questions.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Wikipedia 15 has a mark!

Read this message in other languages

Wikipedia 15 now has a mark! Be sure to check out the “Material” section of the Wikipedia 15 meta page to see the design, and learn about how to use it. This year's mark is meant to be fun, interactive, and infinitely customisable. We can’t wait to see how you and your Wikimedia community use it!

–For the WMF Communications team, Sam Lien and Joe Sutherland 02:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

2015 Affiliations Committee call for candidates

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!

The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and advise the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee consists of twelve members, six of whom are selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms.

Key skills

Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We try to get a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members. The key skills and experience that we look for in candidates are:

• Excitement by the challenge of helping to empower groups of volunteers worldwide.
• Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
• Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliations, and similar questions.
• Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly ~2 hour voice/video meeting.
• International orientation.
• Very good communication skills in English.
• Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
• Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the WMF.
• Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organising are a plus.
• Effective communication skills in other languages are a major plus.
• Experience with or in an active affiliate is a major plus.
• Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.

We are looking for people who are not afraid of the workload and are motivated by helping other volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world.

Selection process

As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2015 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta (at Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2015), and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.

At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, WMF staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2016, with new members expected to join later that month.

How to apply

If you are interested in joining the committee, please send an application to affcom@lists.wikimedia.org by 31 December 2015. You will get a confirmation that your application was received.

Your application should include the following:

• Your full name
• Your contact information (including e-mail address and username)
• A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.

Your statement will be published for community review and feedback, so please do not include any information that you are not comfortable sharing.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!

Best regards,
Carlos Colina
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Get involved in Wikipedia 15!

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

• Join/host an event. We already have more than 80, and hope to have many more.
• Talk to local press. In the past 15 years, Wikipedia has accomplished extraordinary things. We’ve made a handy summary of milestones and encourage you to add your own. More resources, including a press release template and resources on working with the media, are also available.
• Design a Wikipedia 15 logo. In place of a single icon for Wikipedia 15, we’re making dozens. Add your own with something fun and representative of your community. Just use the visual guide so they share a common sensibility.
• Share a message on social media. Tell the world what Wikipedia means to you, and add #wikipedia15 to the post. We might re-tweet or share your message!

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Help

Notification of User Group Expiration

Greetings,

This is a notification to bring to your attention that your organization is currently past due on its required annual reporting. and has expired. Wikimedia User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to prompt review for a renewal. Reports must be written in English, posted to meta, and linked on the meta Reports page.

This page is used to track how organizations and groups are meeting reporting requirements described in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. chapter agreements, thematic organization agreements, user group agreements). It is the central place where affiliates can add reports about their activities, share their plans, and even news or social media channels with the wider movement. When new reports are available, organizations and groups should add them to this page to keep their columns up to date.

As noted on the meta Reports page, your organization’s annual reporting became past due March 2015 and your user group agreement remains expired. If you wish to reapply for your user group status. please be sure to:

1. Post your annual reporting to the meta Reports page as soon as possible to return to compliance with your chapter agreement.
2. Check that your groups page is also up to date with past report links for historical record-keeping, and
3. Please send an email to Wikimedia-l in order to share with a movement-wide audience.

If we do not hear from you or receive this reporting on the reports page within the next 30 days, your group's name and logo will be removed from the affiliates page and your information and page link will be migrated to the Formerly Active Affiliates page rather.

If you have any questions or need any further guidance, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Best regards, JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@LauraHale: @Brian McNeil: Please see the notice above. If you do not follow the steps above to report on your groups annual activities, your user group will no longer be recognized as an active Wikimedia affiliate. Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

• Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
  • Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
• Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
  • Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
• Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
  • Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
  • Introduction of williamsworks
• Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
  • The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
• Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
  • Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

• Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
  • Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
• Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
  • Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
• Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
  • Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)

This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes

Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:

Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.

There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:

Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).

Track B (individual contributors): On Meta or your local language or project wiki.

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.

• Find out more about the movement strategy process
• Learn more about volunteering to be a Discussion Coordinator

Sincerely,

Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the engagement support teams

05:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

• April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
• April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
• April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
• May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
• May 15–19 – Board vote checking
• May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

• Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
  • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

• Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
  • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electionswikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

Proposed grant on en.wn

See n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#Proposal_for_a_grant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)