Talk:Wikimedia UK v1.0
- 1 Older messages
- 2 Naming issue
- 3 naming issue
- 4 & Ireland?
- 5 Meetup
- 6 Meeting
- 7 Nov 27 Meeting
- 8 Aims
- 9 Research on WikimediaUK
- 10 Mailing list problem
- 11 From Wikimedia Australia
- 12 UK Intellectual property law
- 13 Congratulations Wikimedia UK
- 14 Lack of Wikimedia
- 15 Domains
- 16 Status of chapter
- 17 membership fee
- 18 Needs updating
- 19 "Paul Sinclair"?
- 20 annual reports
- 21 Move
For a UK Wikimedia chapter, I think that if it has the option to do so, then it should be headquartered in London. 188.8.131.52 05:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Leeds is very central for the UK. Also Manchester and Birmingham LoopZilla 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
(moved from Wikimedia UK)
I was thinking the chapter should cover England and all the places round it, but it seems there is no non-controversial name for this place. It might be easier to do an England and Wales chapter since those two share the same charity law. However, it's going to be a while before Ireland, Scotland etc have enough Wikipedians to form their own chapter, so I think something combining those would be best, at least to begin with. I don't know if this would include the Channel Islands which are British Islands but not always seen as part of the British Isles.
The following articles show there is no sensible name for this chapter: England and Wales, United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Britain, Great Britain, British Isles, British Islands, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Britain and Ireland, Islands of the North Atlantic, Channel Islands.
Angela 23:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It might be better to set the aims of the chapter before choosing the geography that it encompasses: boundry merging would be less difficult if a common purpose was shared. Or else there'd be the inevitable split. rroddy
- It seems that Ireland isn't included, except for Northern Ireland. Certainly I would not advocate including the Republic of Ireland, as it has different laws, and we would have a transnational organisation to administer, which may be more difficult. I would go for Wikimedia UK. Matthew Platts 00:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well... If we're going to at some point be a regional chapter of Wikimedia Europe, which itself is a regional chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't see the hugest problem in having Wikimedia Scotland, Wikimedia Republic of Ireland, Wikimedia Northern Ireland, Wikimedia British Dependencies, and, of course Wikimedia England & Wales, other than a bit more administrative hassle, if necessary. So, how about creating "Wikimedia England & Wales" at first, with a view to making Wikimedia British Isles (or something less unharmonious to some on the island of Ireland)?
- Of course, if all we end up doing is providing a channel for money back to the Wikimedia Foundation, we'd not be a charity, so...
- James F. (talk) 18:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The chapter will be far more than just a money channel to the Foundation. We need to think about UK-specific projects that we could apply for funding for. Printing WikiReaders and distributing those here seems an obvious option, and running Wikimedia event stands is something the chapter could co-ordinate and provide funding for, but I'm sure there is a lot more we could do besides that. Angela 20:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As one of the purposes will be to be a fundraiser, and it is intended to be a charity, why not set the "boundary", such as it is, at the level of UK charity law? Whilst it is true that the law varies between Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, a charity registered in any one of those three is recognised as such within the whole of the UK (in terms of tax status etc) - so, why not just go for that? Scott Keir
- I have a decade of experience as a local and national organiser for go, much of which is perhaps not directly relevant; but I have run stalls, produced newsletters and flyers, been on committees, done local and national publicity, and so on. It doesn't actually make me want to sign up for more of the same - but I think I can claim to know the territory. The point I'd like to make at this stage is that communication with our own folks is something basic, which can get overlooked. Charles Matthews 06:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know that the naming issue is a controvercial one. Other organisations have used the term IONA for official purposes even though the region is effectively known as the British Isles in practice. IONA stands for Islands Of North Atlantic. Any thoughts?
- When I was setting up part of the Microsoft Network in 1995 for a US company I had exactly this problem. I ended up with the (hopefully neutral!) WISE (Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England) but had also considered IONA but it was felt that IONA logically included Iceland, Greenland, Spitzbergen (or current name thereof) etc. It seemed to meet with approcal, but isn't especially clear. "British Isles" becomes a bit like the Falkland Isles -v- Las Malvinas issue and, sorry to say, I'm not sure there is actually an 'acceptable to all' option. --VampWillow 15:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- "Wikimedia WISE" - I like it! Not entirely transparent as to its purpose, but that's maybe just a case of getting enough publicity that it sticks in people's heads. - IMSoP 16:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really like it; neo-logism and all that, and a bit ugly (and undue prominence to one quarter of the population of the British Isles - 3 + 6 + 5 << 50).
- James F. (talk) 17:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Might I suggest that Wikimedia Britain & Ireland would suffice? The British and Irish Lions seem not to be a source of too much controversy - there is also the British-Irish Council, which actually comprises representatives from all the British Isles. --Kwekubo 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- The words Britain and Ireland require special permission for incorporation in Company Law. UK is fine. LoopZilla 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Let's not be childish here. I'm sure Pliny the Elder didn't mean to offend anyone when coining the term "British Isles". It is the most recognisable and sensible term. I really don't like WISE, etc. Sounds silly, and no-one will know what it means. Let's be grownups about this. --Ce garcon 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm just repeating here what I said on the mailing list  that I would like to see Ireland included in this chapter, primarily to promote the links in history and languages (hence going beyond narrow nationalism) and see some collaboration between language groups as to promoting their use within the community. Irish is an almost dying language, despite being mandatory at school and there being a TV station in Irish, and it would be great to see minor languages working together on common cultural goals, ie. the preservation of those languages. As above, naming will be an issue, but what about the legal aspects (as has already been mentioned)? What precisely do we need to look out for in terms of potential problems with the setting up of a charity in two or more legal systems? The Irish charity sector is undergoing a review at present with a report due for publication next year . I do know, having worked in a large NGO that operated in both Ireland and the UK, that it is possible to have such a thing. But what do we need to be aware of when considering this prospect from our own perspective? Even a general idea would be good so that we can look into the law more in depth - or find someone knowledgeable enough to give advice. I have found a useful resource which is a searchable database of the law between the various complexities within the British Isles (or whatever you call the area) here. Or, if this proves to be just too problematic, it just might be possible to drum up enough support with the Irish Wikipedians (in English and Irish) to initiate a way of working with the UK/England&Wales chapter when it is set up in order to further the work I've outlined above. What do you think? Cormaggio 23:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The silence is deafening - I'll take that as a "no takers for now" then? Cormaggio @ 23:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I like the idea. Wikipedia has 66 active Irish writers and god only knows how many readers. I doubt many people would aware of this suggestion - I only found out today. Perhaps you could leave a message on the 66 user talk pages? I'm personally more commited to wikinews, so I can only offer limited input. Good idea though. CGorman 10:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I thought initially that my post above indicated interest, but now that I think about it it is not exactly clear that I'm in Ireland :) So, to make it explicit, I'm quite interested in a Wikimedia chapter for Britain and Ireland, so I'll leave a few messages around as you suggest, Cian. Perhaps you can cover our three Irish Wikinewsies (you, me, and the American)... --Kwekubo 03:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, but besides interest, we'd also have to consider feasability, ie. legal issues etc. (This is complicated.) I've left a notice on the w:Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board to gauge interest for now There's also this mailing list for further discussion. What do non-Irish people think - is this an overly complicated consideration or is it doable? Is it about interest or the legal/naming side? Cormaggio @ 09:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would love for there to be a Wikimedia British Isles (or whatever it would be called), but it seems legally difficult, if not impossible. Much as I would like to have one chapter for all of the RoI and UK, it seems likely that if we were to try it would rather delay the creation of a chapter, and we might have to postpone making that last step. :-(
- James F. (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
There will be a meetup on the 11th of September at which the formation of Wikimedia UK will almost certainly be discussed; see w:en:Wikipedia:Meetup/London (yes, I know, this should be on meta). This is very late in the day to announce this, but as an evil Wikipedia-centricist I didn't think. Sorry.
There will be a meeting about setting up Wikimedia UK very soon, probably on the 9th of October or so, in London (because that's where most of the involved persons are, before people complain). This isn't meant as a meetup; it's not a social or general-interest event, but instead a meeting specificially for the issue at hand.
Thoughts, interest, suggested locations?
Nov 27 MeetingEdit
Would it not be preferable to have the business end of the meeting first, with the social afterwards? It means that we don't have to spoil people's fun too much in order to start getting serious. -- Francs2000 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- The pub is open from 12 noon to 6pm on Sundays. Lunches are served all day. My thinking was that the lunch would be an option. LoopZilla 20:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
(Moved from Wikimedia UK)
Something like: "To support education and learning projects in the UK and worldwide, linked with (but not limited to) projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
- The WMF's blurb reads:
- A registered non-profit corporation dedicated to encouraging the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects.
- How about using this with a slightly changed meaning (encouraging -> supporting to "allow" us to in-mission give grants to organisations such as, oh, perhaps the WMF):
- A charity dedicated to supporting the growth and development of free-content, multi-lingual, wiki-based information and learning projects.
- James F. (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- "[A charity dedicated to] supporting the growth and development of multi-lingual, free-content information and learning projects."
... removes "wiki-based" and so allows still more flexibility (we don't always necessarily need to use wikis).
Alternatively, we can try to enumerate them:
To support the Wikimedia Foundation, based in Florida USA. Wikimedia Foundation remains our governing body
- ... or that.
- To encourage and support the use of Wikipedia in education, both in schools and higher education
- To promote literacy through projects that contribute to Wikipedia, both locally and a global level
Research on WikimediaUKEdit
It was quite a good meeting yesterday, and hello and thanks to all who came.
I just wanted to point out (and i meant to mention it yesterday) that I'll be basing my research (MSc leading to PhD) on Wikimedia UK - more like a "survey of possibilities" to begin with and then a look at how projects progress (assuming they do!) - I'm documenting my own progress/process on a blog if you want to take a look. Essentially, I want this research to be useful both to us as a community (and as people who will be running and implementing this charity), community development people who have used ICT etc. through their work, and also "end users", ie. teachers, linguists, local historians etc. about what they might see themselves doing with this charity. Ideas from all interested parties are very welcome - and i might be contacting you myself anyway! Thanks.
Mailing list problemEdit
The mailing list won't accept mails from me. Very frustrating. Who should I ask for tech help? Rich Farmbrough 14:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the list admin.; email me (at email@example.com) from the account that you wish to send email to the list from, and I will fix it for you.
- James F. (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, do feel free to post here what you would otherwise post to the mailing address. I, along, I think, with most others interested in getting Wikimedia UK off the ground, have the Wikimedia UK pages on my watchlist, so will get to see what you have to say, Jguk 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- This highlights a problem. Where the central core of discussion? LoopZilla 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion is over a mixture of the mailing list and the Wikimedia UK pages. Do we need a central core? Perhaps we should have a standing note on the mailing list of what pages people might have to look on their watchlists (it's not many really - and now Cormac has placed that template over the top of the key pages, it's easy to navigate between them all), Jguk 06:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I am lost. Maybe it is just me then... LoopZilla 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Cormac added the following template onto the top of all the main Wikimedia UK pages for easy navigation! Maybe it is just you, Gordon:) Jguk 16:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- So true, so true.... LoopZilla 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
From Wikimedia AustraliaEdit
- Hello from Down Under.
- Angela came to Melbourne and Sydney in November, and since then we've thought of having a Foundation in earnest.
- It was suggested after the February Sydney meetup that we talk about certain issues which will affect the British and Australian chapters equally.
- Like whether the British chapter has an office and what is implied in that, and whether the Australian chapter should get one. And also the sort of paperwork which can be expected, as British and Australian laws are similar.
- Could we share a contact person, please, who will help us thrash these issues out?
- Do you know if online AGMs are quite legal, or have you not come to that stage yet?
- --Bronwyn Gannan 10:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
Hello from the Mother Country.
The British company which will operate under the name Wikimedia UK will not have an office. It has a "registered office", but that is just legal parlance for an address to which legal papers may be served, and will be the house of one of our directors. The main issues are that, if we are to obtain Gift Aid (which increases donations from UK taxpayers to a registered charity by 28%), we cannot just be a conduit to the Foundation. Of course, we will consider specific requests from the Foundation for grants, and as the Foundation's objects are consistent with ours, there is a fair chance that such applications will be successful - but we will consider other projects too.
In terms of the paperwork, we are bound by the Companies Act 1985, which requires a Memorandum and Articles of Association in a specified form. We could have organised as an unincorporated association or as a Trust, but decided on a corporate form (not least because we wanted limited liability).
I think it is possible, if your articles permit, to allow for an online AGM, though it is our intention that these will always be real-life meetings.
Although our legal systems are similar, I think there are likely to be enough differences for you to need to set out on your own, but please feel free to email me if you have further queries, Jguk 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also sure David Gerard would be a help to you as a sounding board in this regard. In general, Delphine, the Chapter co-ordinator, or other members of the Chapters committee would be willing to help too. (I'm obviously interested - see my user page - but not very well versed in the law.) In any case, all the best with the development of the chapter. Cormaggio @ 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- For reference to the online meetings point, one organisation I am a member of holds an 'in person' AGM which other members are entitled to 'attend' via an associated IRC channel which one of the members physically present at the meeting updates with what is going on there. Remote members can, moreorless, fully participate in the meeting and propose or talk to motions, stand for positions, etc. Indeed I have been an online attendeee at this AGM twice quite successfully (it also being more comfortable and more convenient that getting to where the physical meeting was being held!). --Alison Wheeler 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
UK Intellectual property lawEdit
I don't know where exactly to post this article, but it's a look at intellectual property law in the UK, which I thought would be both interesting and relevant. Cheers. Cormaggio @ 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations Wikimedia UKEdit
Wow! You're an official chapter now! Congraulations for all the hard work and long may it continue. --Bronwyn Gannan 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
- Many thanks! and good luck with your setting up in Oz too. --Alison Wheeler 11:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Lack of WikimediaEdit
Your chapter purposely avoided calling yourselves "Wikimedia" anything, officially. Is that a UK law thing, or was it to satisfy a request of the Wikimedia Foundation. -- user:zanimum (Wikimedia Canada)
- The former; we intend to operate with (the charity form of "trading as") the Wikimedia name, under licence from the Foundation.
- James F. (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
To put it more precisely, we could have difficulties if we used the name Wikimedia in the company name if the Wikimedia Foundation later denied us permission to use it. To change a company name in the UK you need support of at least 75% of members in a poll. As we would be unable to guarantee 75% support to change our name, we wouldn't be able to guarantee that we could keep to our side of the deal to stop using the Wikimedia name if so requested, Jguk 13:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Couldn't you have simply asked for permission from the Foundation first? -- Tonync 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- We did, unnoficially, but this way allows the Foundation to withdraw their permission at some point in the future. For example, if WER gets taken over by people who are not sympathetic to the goals of the foundation or who want to use the name for their own ends, then the Foundation will most likely withdraw permission to use the Wikimedia name. As WMUK is not the company name, there does not need to be a vote to change it (which those who have taken over the organisation would obviously not want to do) because WER has no rights to the name, and all they are getting is an organisation called Wiki Educational Resources. As we wont be using this name in publicity then they are no better off than starting with a new name. It also allows the original directors, etc to set up a new organisation with a new name and get new permission from the Foundation to use the Wikimedia name. Also, I understand that agreements between foreig organisations and companies that do not yet exist are (or can be) legally very complicated. Thryduulf (en,commons) 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- An additional comment, for the benefit of (very!) latecomers, but an additional aspect of the choice in naming is that if we had registered ourselves as "Wikimedia Ltd" - as indeed would have been possible - we would have the de facto rights to use the name 'Wikimedia' no matter what the Foundation subsequently did, indeed it is quite possible that our having the name as our registered business name could have prevented the Foundation from registering the trademark to themselves (as they have subsequently done). --Alison Wheeler 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the following on this page:
- http://wikipedia.co.uk - owned by Bomis, redirect to the English Wikipedia
- http://wikipedia.org.uk - owned by Chris Brooking, redirect to the English Wikipedia
Although it may seem sensible at first to redirect wikipedia.*.uk domains to English Wikipedia, would it not be better to place portals there? English is not the only language spoken in the UK (in fact, it is not even the official language) - the UK is home to a variety of both homegrown (eg. Welsh, Scots, etc.) and immegrant languages. Wikimedia UK's official position should be language-neutral and serve the needs of all UK citizens, regardless of their tongue. We should also play a role in actively promoting the Wikimedia projects of these minor languages. As such, it seems sensible to me to place portals at those two domains (.org.uk and .co.uk) which would list the most commonly spoken languages in the UK. What are people's opinions on this? (There is an article at the English Wikipedia about languages of the UK - ) --Oldak Quill 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As WMUK don't own or control those domains then this isn't really the right place to discuss such an idea ... --Alison Wheeler 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Status of chapterEdit
What is the current status of the Wikimedia UK chapter? I am from the UK and was quite interested in this, however this talk page has not been used since 2006 and there appears to have been little activity on the page about this chapter. Lcarsdata 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This make me sound skint but I think 25 GBP/a is a bit steep, especially as Wikimedia UK does not operate any of the Wikimedia projects and does not pay a donation to Wikimedia Foundation. We have (yet) no clear indication of the possible Wikimedia UK projects and the budget. Wikimedia UK is not a charity yet. I shall pay for this year (seed fund) but will have to think as carefully in coming years. I would suggest a one-tier membership fee of 15 GBP with no concession offers, starting calendar year 2008. – Kaihsu 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It seems like quite a lot for a non-charitable (as yet) organisation that, as far as I know, doesn't really do much yet. Is there a budget anywhere saying what this money is spent on? How about £25 joining fee and then just £5 a year renewal fee. If the chapter needs more money than that, it should do fundraising in addition to membership fees. --Tango 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated: "An EGM is being planned for late 2007." Cowardly Lion 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is this mysterious figure that serves as the interim CFO of WM UK? This thread arouses my suspicion and Majorly said he knew who it might be. Sam Korn convinced him not to tell. Can I see a picture of this person? What is his on-wiki username? 184.108.40.206 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding "Businessfirst", try Companies House’s WebCHeck – Kaihsu 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a picture was the wrong thing for the anonymous poster to ask; but in any case, potential members need some assurance as to what is really going on, and the verifiable credentials of people handling the assets of Wikimedia UK, before investing their money and time. The main sentiment of the original comment remains valid. – Kaihsu 11:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't see how knowing the username will magically make his credentials verifiable. Majorly talk 11:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Then the wise Directors will need to find a way to allay any reasonable suspicion of the potential members. – Kaihsu 11:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My goal is not to verify his credentials. It is strange that a WM UK board chair would hide his username on WP, of all things to hide. A picture was the wrong thing to ask for. 220.127.116.11 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- A number of people have asked for more details and have been given them. I think we should respect he wants to keep this job away from his online identity, if he wants to. Majorly talk 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- PS he isn't the board chair. Majorly talk 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- What more details? Links please. __18.104.22.168__ 04:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
May I implore the wise Directors to post the annual report for 2007 (including a financial statement if no trade secret would be compromised) here; and also retrospectively that for 2006. – Kaihsu 11:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that this organisation is being superceded by Wikimedia UK v2, I suggest:
AndrewRT 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- In time, yes. WM UK v2.0 isn't an official chapter yet, I suggest waiting until it is. At the moment WER is still "Wikimedia UK", as far as I know. --Tango 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok seems sensible to me. I'll hold off till then. AndrewRT 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)