Talk:Wikimedia chapters/Archive 1

Would also serve...

I don't understand, what is meant by Would also serve.... Afaik we need a chapter in every country from where we want to receive tax-deductible donations (in the long run we should have one in each country of the world). I think the German association will get many members from Austria and Switzerland - this is obvious but it's their own decision. If some Austrians decide to setup an Austrian association, they should be able to do this. And they should not do this as an appendix to Wikimedia Germany but rather under the same umbrella (Wikimedia Foundation).

Our projects differ in languages but our organisation should differ in countries. Not only for legal reasons but also to make clear, that the projects are widely independent from a single chapter. The German association stated very clear, that it wants to promote all international projects and not only these in german language. I hope all upcoming chapters will do this in a similar way. -- Akl 13:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: Wikimedia Germany already has a Chinese member [1]. Should Wikimedia Germany also serve China? ;-)

No, no, no. Other countries can rely on chapters set up in one country, for instance, especially when there is a shared language or there is not enough representation to have their own chapter. For instance, Austria and Liechtenstein would rely on Wikimedia Germany. WhisperToMe 16:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course Wikimedia Germany is willing to pay attention to austrian matters, but only to that point, Austrian Wikipedians set up their own chapter under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Akl 17:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Something's missing

My Massachusetts! Acegikmo1 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The good news ! It is a wiki ! Click on "edit this page" :-)

---

It is of the local people to decide is they whant to run a local chapter in the country / area / city. That those who will do the work. So that this List of suggested chapters is a bit weird to me. Yann 19:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

French chapter

So, are you saying that this chapter is to serve all French-speaking people in Europe? If this is right, then the French Wikimedia chapter would serve Belgium, Luxembourg, Andorra, Monaco, and Switzerland. WhisperToMe 00:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

not only, Québec, Sénégal, Côte d'Ivoire, and many others are French speaking countries too. Aurevilly 09:52, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Probably that French-speaking Switzerland will work with the France-based chapter and German-speaking Switzerland will work with the Germany-based chapter. Yann 19:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. What city is this chapter to be based at? It seems it is Paris-based. If this is correct, Paris should be put in parenthenses.

The actual location is not yet decided. It is usually the address of the chairman, unless we get some organisation who allow us to use its place and address. It will be when the chapter is officially created. Yann 19:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2. It makes sense for French-speaking countries in Europe and Africa to be served from the French Wikimedia chapter. I think that Quebec is better off served from a Canadian Wikimedia chapter. WhisperToMe 03:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is of people from Quebec to decide. They have the choice of atleast 3 solutions. Work with the French speaking chapter, work with the Canadian chapter, or create their own. Yann 19:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to point out that the future French chapter is not to be for French people but for French speakers whatever the country. Since the language is the crucial point for Media projects, this organization seemed the more appropriate. Of course, the Francophone chapter is to welcome any local sub-chapter organized on a territorial level. Aurevilly 19:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Procedure (in French)

1. écrire des statuts (prendre des statuts types) avec un objet social précis
2. déposer les statuts à la préfecture et remplir le formulaire pour la publication au JO
3. payer la publi au JO
4. dès réception du numéro du JO, demander un numéro SIREN à l'INSEE (bureau local) A priori tu as besoin d'un seul SIRET, pour le siège social
5. ouvrir un compte bancaire; le plus avantageux c'est la Poste (appeler à l'avance; les petits bureaux n'ouvrent pas les comptes d'associations; prévoir des délais)

---

What chapters are for, what they are not for

I saw this posting on Foundation-l today.[2]

Earlier on, I happened to talk about similar issues on IRC.

Based on those, here are some questions that deserve some thoughts, I think.

• Is it okay to have geographically-based and language-based chapters? Francophone chapter (whose members include Algerians, Belgians, Canadians, etc.) and French chapter. Or California interlingual chapter and California spanish-speaking chapter.
• How should the voting rights and membership fees be arranged? If a spanish-speaking Californian living in France wants to join California interlingual, California spanish-speaking, and French interlingual associations, should he pay three different fees?
• How should the payment be arranged? If a person pays to join multiple organizations, should he pay to those organizations separately? (That would also mean Internationally.) Or is there a way for him to pay locally when there is a local chapter? But in that case, can he pay to the local chapter without joining to the local chapter? Then the local chapter will transfer the fund to three different organizations in other countries? Should the local chapter charge extra "transaction fees"?
• Should there be some form of hierarchy - Wikimedia Foundation at the top, having other organizations at the bottom (US chapter - California chapter - San Francisco chapter, etc.)

Tomos 00:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I largely agree with Arne's mailing list post. I had also assumed local chapters would be based on location, not language. One of the benefits of having a local chapter is that the dues you pay will be tax free. This isn't going to be the case if the chapter is trying to deal with, for example, French speakers in both Canada and France. Similarly, I wouldn't expect there to be an English speaking chapter covering both America and England. What would be the point? If there was something local to me, I expect it would be based geographically, and therefore covering at least the languages listed at British Wikimedia Chapter, not covering only English. It would be interesting to hear from those who are setting up the French chapter why they have chosen to go about this differently. Angela 00:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Among the strengths of Arne's proposal was the simplicity. This issue could really be complicated as implied by the list of questions above.

I suppose here are some potential reasons. This is just a conjecture, and I am also interested in learning what people discussed in creating fr. association.

• Association is born out of relations that already exist on wikipedia and other wikimedia projects, I suppose. That means, if fr. wikipedians start saying, "let's make a french-local association!" then some other fr. wikipedians might feel "what about me? I'm out of picture because I don't live in france?" This, in its own sense, might feel to some inconsistent with the idea of wikimedia projects "language, not nationality, is what ties us."
• Some countries bear population speaking different languages. Having one organization may not be the best choice for them. Some would feel that having their own organization based on their language would reflect more of their interests. This is especially the case because the projects are divided by languages. Some spanish-speaking people may feel more inclined to join spanish-language association than california association based only on English. And English speaking people in California may feel that making the association multilingual is not their best interest.
• Association may be interested in helping certain wikimedia projects - say, WikiReader in de.

Tomos 05:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The simplicity of my proposal on foundation-l has a simple reason: I think my english is not good enough to make more complex statements. But let me try to answer your questions at the top of this section...

• IMHO it's not okay to have geographically-based and language-based chapters. We should have only geographically-based chapters. As I wrote above we need a chapter in every country from where we want to receive tax-deductible donations (in the long run we should have one in each country of the world). Why re-inventing the wheel? Look at the big international non-profit organizations (Greenpeace, Red Cross or any other). They all have international projects and their members don't speak the same language but they don't have chapters based on languages or projects - their chapters are geographically-based.
• The hierarchy I propose is very simple (please note: this is not my idea, but rather what most international organizations do): Foundation -> local (national) chapters -> regional chapters (only meaningful in very large countries). In the long run I see the Foundation only as an umbrella for the national chapters without any direct members. But at least until we have chapters in most countries of the world the Foundation should additionally act as a chapter.
• It sounds very strange to me that one person has to become a member of different chapters of the same organization to get voting rights on all levels. All non-profit-organizations that I know manage this in a very simple way: join *one* chapter to become part of the international organization. It seems obvious to me that most people will choose the chapter of the country they live in. If they don't want to join this chapter or if there is no chapter they would probably choose a chapter nearby or a chapter that uses their mother tongue as a working language or they would choose the Foundation.
• Each member should have the right to vote on issues regarding his own chapter and the organizations above of it. If someone is a member of more than one organization (I don't see any reason for this, but who knows) he should have only one vote in each part of the organization (i.e. a member of Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia France has one vote in Germany, one vote in France and one vote on international issues).

Please keep in mind: the more complex the structure the higher is the administrative overhead. So let's keep it simple! There are enough more worthwhile things to spend time and money on. -- Arne (akl) 01:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by. :)

The major question I conceive is this, then.

• Local chapters may collect money from the local members.
• But it is the Foundation in the U.S. that needs money.
• Local chapters perhaps cannot transfer all the money to the Foundation due to legal restrictions.

At this point of time, I am not very sure if it is good to have money for WM Foundation in many differet countries. When servers are located globally, that will make more sense. When there are other meaningful expenses in many parts of the world (WikiReader might be one such thing, quite possibly), then the localized funds is good. Well, since people are discussing this issue on Foundation-l I will post it to there. Tomos 07:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the difficulty for a group to work with different languages is under estimated for day-to-day activities. And I have a bit of experience on this matter. ;o) For the chapter which is going to be created in France, there are already people from Belgium and Switzerland, one from Japan, but all speak French. So at least this chapter will be operative in France, in Belgium and in Switzerland. It would seem logical to me if German-speaking people from Switzerland work with the German chapter, and if people from Dutch-speaking Belgium work with a to-be-created-Dutch-chapter in Netherlands or Belgium. In Europe with a common currency, it is less a criteria to have national chapters. And we would welcome people from other countries (by example, Africa) until they create their own chapter. Yann 16:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tax-deductible donations and other legal stuff require *national* chapters. -- Arne (akl) 17:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: "non-profit organizations (…Red Cross…)" - be careful. Red Cross / Red Half Moon may be accepted charities in many countries. At least in some, the are doubtlessly for-profit, and/or running and owning very profitable companies.

No objection to the idea of having organizations being able to collect tax deductible funds in all states or territories where this applies. Of course, that isn't he whole world, but much of it.

+ Tax deductibility will, sooner or later, be available in European Union member states on an EU-level, too.

+ Money transfers can possibly be made cheaper, or avoided, when funds can be spent by local chapters on behalf of other chapters or the foundation. Say, e.g. a chapters pays for WM servers located in their contry, and deducts the amount from their dues.

I do object the idea of having local organizations independent of language only. There are several reasons:

1. Most compelling and very politely spoken, there may be huge grievances among language, or ethnic, groups in a state, such as the Tamil in Sri Lanka, the Basks in France and Spain, or the Kurds in Turkey, Russia, and Iran, that may be simply prohibitive, or at least hard to overcome, when it comes to setting up bylaws, etc., that need to be written down in (a) specific language(s). Thus, sometimes, it may be quicker, easier, and generating more revenue, to have several local chapters somewhere.
2. Another focus has been mentioned: What do members feel at ease with? Especially when they are wanting to predominantly support a specific language edition of a project, e.g. in a cross-border language, such as Kurdish, Austro-Bavarian, Bask, Romani, that has no or little recognition in national settings? Here, cross-border organizations may be a working solution, at times, that get tax-exemptions in multipe states.
3. Last not least, we can form chapters independent of nationalities in some political environments so as to specifically address supranational structures and bodies as potential donors, such as the UNESCO, the African Council, the European Union, etc., while at the same time collect members from the area in question who are too few per country, too spread out over various contries, or otherwise not joining or forming national chapters.

Thank you for listening. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

page to be corncerned

Local chapters/Zh:.Stewart~惡龍+Chat here! 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

China?

I'm not sure why the map on this page indicates the Hong Kong chapter as serving all of mainland China? The likelihood of having any chapter serving the mainland (proper) is poor to nil, given that access to Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia is being actively blocked by the régime in that nation. --Carlb 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See the note on the image, Note: US and China are semi-colored due to planned chapters in Pennsylvania, New York City, and Hong Kong. Does that answer your question? Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hong Kong is the only place in China that can access Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia without any restrictions because it's not inside the Great Firewall. Also, since the Chinese government is anti-Wikimedia, it seems not possible to have a official local chapter now in mainland China (maybe in the future). Hong Kong, however, is more free and liberty on this. Is that answered your question? H.T. Chien ( Talk / Contributions ) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But anyway, I argee that the map may be somehow misleading without noticing the note. In fact, "Hong Kong" (HKG) is one of the 245 political entities in the world (Hong Kong's case is different from those of Pennsylvania & New York City, which are not political entities), so it can be marked independent from "People's Republic of China" (PRC), i.e. Mainland China , but I understand that if we just mark Hong Kong, it will be too small to be seen. And by the way, Wikimedia Macau ("Macau" (MAC) is part of PRC, but the status is simular to Hong Kong) is in discussion phase already, and this factor should be considered as well. -- Kevinhksouth 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the small-geography chapters, no matter what their political status, should just have a visible, slightly oversized circle, like here. I really don't see what the harm is if the Hong Kong circle overlaps Guangdong Province a little bit, for visibility reasons.--Pharos 03:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you guys pick up only Hong Kong. Your attutude to bring it up seems to me unbalanced. As for geographical coverage excess, the USA case seems to me more heavily emphasized. There is no US chapter plan, but only state level ones in East Coast, while the whole US including Alaska is colored in the same way of China, but you seem not mind that (note that it is concerning about Chapter, so the place the WMF is situated doesn't matter at all). But when the same happened on China representation, you mind it. It doesn't look balanced and consistent attitude imo. The coloring simply indicates there is at least one planned chapter in that country or region, so I don't see any problem about the current representation. --Aphaia 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been heavily involved in the nascent New York City chapter, and my proposal was in fact how I wanted our chapter represented.--Pharos 07:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

US-Pacific (Alaska through California) may well be a special case in that they're geographically closer to the main WMF (in California) than to any of the proposed local (Canada or US) chapters. I don't see any parallel with mainland China, though; both are unique cases that must be viewed individually. --Carlb 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorting

Right now there is sorting in alphabetical order of the country code. Wouldn't it be more semantic if it were sorted on the chapter name? / Ainali 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Chapters are often referred in abbreviation, WM(country code), so the current order has its benefit to some extent, and it is also semantic. Rather a list whose sorting order can be alternated would be more useful, I suppose. See List of Wikipedias for example. --Aphaia 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Aphaia. Cbrown1023 talk 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chapter proposal - Wikimedia Texas

I wonder if anyone has ever talked about starting a Wikimedia chapter serving Texas (and possibly the South Central USA)? - I would prefer that the headquarters be in Houston, but it may be better to have it in a more "neutral" location (possibly) - Right now I am in no position to actually create a chapter, but I can get other editors and see what they want. WhisperToMe

What is a "Wikimedia chapter"? Never heard of it. Please advise. Thanks. --Arthur Smart 23:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This Local chapter FAQ explains what a local chapter does :) - This Step-by-step chapter creation guide tells you how to create it. The goals of the chapters are:

"*Promoting the Wikimedia projects so that new and different people join them or use them (academics, scientists, college students, schools, libraries etc.)

• Investigating and negotiating partnerships on a moral or financial basis to support the Wikimedia projects.
• Helping outside organisations use Wikimedia content, possibly for their own benefit (eg. help publishers of local history Wikireaders, of a Wikipedia DVD in a given language)
• Organizing local and national events and initiatives (eg. participate in trade shows, set up Wikipedia parties, give lectures etc.)
• Taking care of PR and lobbying in a given country, give the press an interlocutor in their own language and culture.
• Enabling (where applicable) tax-deductible donations in the country they are based in.
• Promoting Free Content and wiki culture in their respective territory."

WhisperToMe 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you in whatever way you need. Just let me know what to do! BrianReading 04:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first we (as in people who are interested in a project) have to figure out the bylaws of the United States (and possibly Texas) regarding creating chapters of nonprofit groups. There are planned chapters for Pennsylvania and New York, so we can easily ask people in these projects for information regarding US national bylaws. I am not sure if Texas laws govern this, so this aspect needs to be checked. Also we have to find people who are willing to lead the chapter and set its rules. If you want we can create a page at Wikimedia Texas and list people who are interested in joining a chapter. Let's look at Wikimedia Pennsylvania and Wikimedia New York City to see how the proposed organizations are modeled. Also I would contact the Chapters committee WhisperToMe 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the above sounds reasonable, and I'm willing to get involved. Anyone else want to take leadership of it? I don't want to step on any toes, but I'd like to see it move forward even if I have to do it myself. Please advise. Thanks. --Arthur Smart 02:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe approach user:Austin? :) He's involved in ChapCom already, so I assume that if things are OK, he'd be willing to chop in? Effeietsanders 10:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That would work - try approaching him and see what he thinks. I don't believe I will be able to take any leadership roles in the organization due to work and school. WhisperToMe 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia España

Hi. Don't know if this is the right place for this, but we need some help for our discussions regarding WM-es. We are fulfilling the bylaws and the question arised as for how does WMF expect to be referred to in the text, and where (objectives section?). What is the precise link and type of relationship between WMF and WM-es? Gaianauta 09:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you can best dirct your questions to the Chapters Committee, they will be helpful to get things moving. Effeietsanders 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, We've been trying to move the chapter forward unsuccessfully since more than a year ago and in my opinion we've been stuck in discussions that are not really meaningful, so our participants seem a bit exhausted. I leave this SOS message here to see if there is anybody from WM who can have a look at these bylaws (in spanish only; english version is uncomplete) and say whether they can be already approved by WMF or not. This would really give us a good kick to resurrect the project and finally help in helping WM from Spain! Any other hint on how can we get out of this impasse will be welcome. I'll leave this mssg. to the committee as well. Thanks Gaianauta 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

just a quick 'public' note to mention that the Chapters Committee is currently working out the best way to help with this - we've been in touch via email too :-) cheers, Privatemusings 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

UK status...

I'm happy to update, if someone more involved doesn't get here first! - I'll wait a while, then be 'bold' :-) Privatemusings 10:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be sensible to update it now; there's not much to say (everything on the page is true, right now).

James F. (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the link to the website is that great an idea.... :-) (is the information therein accurate?) - maybe just some sort of 'currently under discussion' kind of thing might help? Privatemusings 10:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's as accurate as it's ever been. WER Ltd. still exists; WMUK, such as it is, still exists as WER Ltd., and the idea of "WMUK 2.0" is currently just that - an idea. It will be (even by the highly-ambitious timeline given) several months before "WMUK" becomes the new company. I see you've also redacted rather large parts of Wikimedia UK, too, which I feel is similarly unhelpful...

James F. (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

< I've reverted my changes there, because I didn't really think they'd be controversial at all. I perceived a tension between the statement that the company is to be wound up, and the statements on both that page, and on the website, and edited accordingly.. it'll all come out in the wash anywhoo... :-) - and I reckon you're right that it might take a bit more time than some reckon?! Privatemusings 11:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)...if the company is being wound up, maybe just make a note on the site? that seems like a good idea to me!

PLease yes, let us wait till everything is officially revoked etc. I trust the people involved to do the right thing when the time comes. Thanks. notafish }<';> 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Chapters Worldmap

As to the map, why don't you color just Pennsylvania, New York City, and Washington, D.C. ? --Purodha Blissenbach 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Member fees

In order to get a more realistic idea of how cheap/expensive it is to become a member of a chapter, you might want to look at this table provided by the OECD. It shows the Purchase Power Parity currency rates against the USD for OECD countries. Note that the EUR has a different PPP exchange rate for each Eurozone country. There are several options to calculate PPP, I think the most relevant for us is the one "for actual individual consumption". Dror_K 07:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation process progress...

Currently 22 chapters established, 11 in discussion, 15 in idea phase, and 16 seen as future. Putting a time line up for end of year estimates of number of chapters:

• 2008 22
• 2009 33
• 2010 48
• 2012 64

Dedalus 15:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

I'm not good with maps but there might be a confusion between Algeria and Morocco on the map. Algeria is painted in blue and Morocco is the country willing to do a chapter. Zil 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikimedia chapters, Algeria is the one "in discussion". Cbrown1023 talk 14:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Membership size

I'd love to hear from chapters (except the Italian one), how do you manage your members, what happens when people do not renew their membership? --Elitre 12:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia membership has fluctuated a lot, with the membership size being cut in half at the renewal period. Each year we end the year with more members than the year before, but it is disheartening to see the membership drop so quickly. We have often politely asked people to renew, but we have not been pro-active in asking members to renew. John Vandenberg 05:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly I asked this question at the last WMCON and most chapters didn't remove member who didn't pay the fees. Nemo 19:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing charter/bylaws translations

If they did get English translations, of course they would be unofficial. But it may still be useful to have English translations for informational purposes.

• France: http://wikimedia.fr/statuts-de-lassociation
• Germany: http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Satzung
• A portion of article 1 of Mexico: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_M%C3%A9xico/Bylaws

And the following, IMO, should get a non-legally binding Arabic translation:

• Israel: http://il.wikimedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94

This one does not yet have a non-legally binding Mandarin Chinese translation:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Macau/Charter/en/20110128

This one does not yet have a non-legally binding Tagalog translation:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Philippines/By-laws

WhisperToMe 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tagalog translation is pending and I'm the one working on it. Legal jargon can be hard to translate into Tagalog (for several reasons), so it takes a while. The aim is that in the long run, the governing documents of Wikimedia Philippines will have translations into all Philippine languages with Wikimedia projects. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that work's going on with it! WhisperToMe 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Satzung/en (even an old Italian translation: Wikimedia_Deutschland/Satzung/Italiano). Nemo 18:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the find! WhisperToMe 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also since Spanish is the 2nd most common language in the US, unofficial translations of the following could help:

• Wikimedia District of Columbia/Bylaws
• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Bylaws

WhisperToMe 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't Meetups have wikimedia page?

I found Wikipedia:Meetups worldwide on En.Wikipedia and it may be on others too, but it seems it would be relevant as it's own section, or related to this page since from little meetups mighty chapters grow. (Of course, I'm not sure yet if our meetup and our chapter in Washington DC are totally separate or what. One of many things have to figure out.) So I don't know if something needs doing or not. Carolmooredc 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Most meetup attendees have been "Wikipedians" that only contribute a few photos to Commons. I think it would be desirable to have all meetups on meta. Its a big job, involing many projects. For example, meetups in France are organised at fr:Wikipédia:Rencontres/Île-de-France/2011. John Vandenberg 23:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The page to look at on this wiki is Meetup. Meetups in the UK are now organised here on meta rather than Wikipedia, and have been doing so for a while, since those that attend them frequently aren't just Wikipedians, or even primarily Wikipedians - e.g. some attendees spend most of their time on Wikisource. It's interesting to hear that the Australian situation is different (at the moment?).

UK meetups are generally separate from the chapter, but not always - e.g. we've 'taken over' the London wikimeet for an EGM. We've also caused meetups to happen in different cities/areas. In general, though, for us they're community-run events, with chapter support being provided as needed. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point on why Meta is better for organizing meetups and not just wikipedia. Also, probably good to link to both meetup pages at top of this article so people who just want to meet others can find them easily, especially if there's no chapter in their town. Carolmooredc 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Chapter acronyms

Here I found that current chapter acronyms have four letters in all caps: WMDE (Germany), WMFR (France), etc. I don't like them because they are too similar, it's easy to confuse them. I propose putting a point between WM and the country code, like in websites. For example, the German chapter would be WM.DE or WM.de. Will you please consider adopting this criteria? Thanks! --NaBUru38 13:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think they are too similar, and don't see a benefit from the dot. In NL, we always use WMNL and it would be unsuitable to change that. By the way, I am not totally sure what to make with the full name. The rule is to use the (country) name in the national language, Wikimedia Deutschland and not Wikimedia Germany. But I would know the national name of some countries or how to pronounce them. Speaking about Wikimedia DE or Wikimedia NL could avoid the problem. Ziko 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For the vast majority of our movement, "WMIL" is a lot more practical than the official name -- ויקימדיה ישראל -- which they can neither read nor write. Other examples are plentiful.

That said, there have been some instance where WMIN was taken to refer to Indonesia rather than India, etc. It's just something we'll have to live with. Adding a dot wouldn't have made that kind of confusion less likely. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 01:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Equipment exchange

I've been told that some chapters acquire equipment, such as cameras and computer equipment, to loan out to their members for the purpose of creating free content. I've started a new forum at commons:Commons:Equipment exchange intended to facilitate the exchange of equipment for producing free content among individual users and chapters alike. It'd be great if I could get some chapter representatives to watchlist it. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New noticeboard

Chapters' noticeboard has been created. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Cascadia

Discussions are currently underway at the talk page for Wikimedia Cascadia. Any thoughts, suggestions or advice would be much appreciated, if interested! Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Chapters portal

Hello, the Aff Com index links here as 'chapters portal'. In Milan, there was the suggestion to create such a prtal. Would it be an idea to rename this page and make it moreof a portal? Ziko (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Macao

In my view (Dutch), the paragraph header is Wikimedia Macau (Hong Kong). Seems wrong to me? Effeietsanders (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

New guidelines for chapters

In a thread on the Wikimedia-l mailing list en:User:Maor_X on behalf of AffCom announced changes to chapter/thematic group criteria which will be implemented before October 2016 for new applicants, but not for existing applicants.

I am not sure where this should be discussed on wiki, as I cannot think of any one forum which is watched and relevant. I thought it would be most relevant to post it here since the majority stakeholders are Wikimedia chapters. It is a little premature to discuss the criteria before AffCom actually publishes them, but also, October is 5 weeks away so I thought it would be timely to share the information.

Here are my initial thoughts:

• My own guess is that 25-50% of current chapters do not meet the proposed eligibility criteria. I hope that AffCom publishes their own guess of how many current members meet the new criteria, because I think most people would suppose that all chapters have the same minimal obligations.
• It is proposed that only new chapters need to meet eligibility criteria. I suppose this is because of the time it takes to retrospectively check existing chapters, and that new applicants would get priority. Still, I hope that all chapters meet the same criteria eventually.
• In 2019 there will be an Affiliate-selected Board seats election and the October 2016 criteria will determine who is and is not eligible to vote. Since the election will be in summer 2019, I think that by summer 2018 there should have been a review of all current chapters and thematic orgs and they should all meet the same minimum eligibility requirements.
• I hope that no one has intent to have diverging sets of requirements for chapters before and after these new rules, or to create multiple sorts of chapters and organizations with different minimal requirements. It has always been imagined that in the chapter system, all organizations are supposed to be equal.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It would indeed be helpful if AffCom would keep this page up to date with the criteria and currently discussed chapters. The page right now reads like a relic from 2012, back in the dark ages ;-) Philip Kopetzky (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

2601:205:4002:4550:B0B7:4A7B:101C:CBF9 12:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters[[3]]

Not done It is not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)