There's some amazing news coming out of the Netherlands regarding the [non-]enclosure of images of public domain artworks by people making photocopies or photographs of them! Thanks for leading the world forward ;) SJ · talk | translate 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Vertaling (nl)Edit

Opmerkelijk nieuws uit Nederland omtrent [niet-]ontsluiten van afbeeldingen publiek domein kunstwerken en het kopiëren of fotograferen ervan! dank voor het vooruithelpen ;) –SJ · talk | translate 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Thank you :) I will sport it with pride. Pundit (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm proud of this award! Thank you! --Perohanych (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the appreciation. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar!Edit

FDC special barnstar

You also deserve this award — to recognize your hard and indispensable work on the first round of the FDC!

--Perohanych (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

+What he said. Pundit (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Your commitment to the process was invaluable. Sydney Poore FloNight (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Current lack of mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chaptersEdit

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your answer over there. Still, I would like to express my concern that apparently the Founation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. So I'd like to ask your personal opinion whether there is any possibility to introduce such mechanism, kind of "anti-corruption commission" of Wikimedia Foundation? Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So I think that there are several measures which can be taken when entities affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundations make seriously bad decisions. Luckily we have not had to resort to this in the past (as I can recall) and I hope we don't have to do this in the future. The examples mentioned in the discussion you are linking to are not examples that I would use of "bad decisions" which hurt our reputation because I really do think that we as a movement should experiment and try new things, which sometimes might not work out.

Wikimedia exit interviewEdit

Hi. I've started Wikimedia exit interview. What do you think? I wanted to ask a few specific questions myself (e.g., "What's been your biggest struggle while working at the Wikimedia Foundation?" or "What are you most proud of?", etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but I am pretty sure that Gayle already does this? Do you need it to be in a public forum? Jan-Bart (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to give community members (not Gayle) a way of asking questions (and receiving answers). A wiki page was one semi-structured way of trying to do that. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see this too. Sue already did an IRC office hour about the exit, I don't think its a stretch to have the same sort of session on wiki. I would think IRC would have been harder to answer questions in, a meta page can be answered at any point that is easy for her. I really don't see what impact Gayle doing a closed exit interview would have for the rest of us, the staff and the board member already know things more than the community members. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
So you are asking for opportunity to ask questions to an employee leaving the foundation in a public forum? This seems like a bad idea. The WMF does exit interviews, but these will never be in a public fashion. If the person(s) in question are open to this kind of scrutiny there are enough possibilities for that person to make her/himself available (irc/wikimedia-l etc..)Jan-Bart (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Sue is an employee, or anyone thinks of her as one. She occupied the highest spot of an executive in the organization. There might have been disagreements along the line, but Sue also happens to be familiar and well-liked by a large part of the community. At the same time, it might be understandable for people to be curious about her departure, her reflections, dare I say, her reasons. I thought her announcement was a bit out of the blue. I don't think an interview would be any worse than an IRC office hour, and she would have the option and time to pick her questions. At the same time, it would be her prerogative to decline and completely understandable. But just in case, Sue is up for it, I would be happy to moderate and collect the questions and submit them to you or Sue directly. I'll make sure the tenor and conduct is respectable and there isn't any cross-talk. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is something we'd only do with willing outgoing department heads and Board members. It's certainly not something we'd do with most staff members. I've started Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner. The upcoming issue of the Signpost will include a call for questions. Theo: if you could post to wikimedia-l and other relevant forums, that would be great. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "exit interview", which connotes a certain privacy and implicit expectation of candor. It's more a "farewell retrospective". There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But it's different. Perhaps it would be good to rename the project. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure there are (m)any examples upon which to base your claim, though I see your point. :-) It's titled "Wikimedia exit interview," as that seemed like the best title choice at the time (someone is exiting, it'll hopefully be a series of questions and answers—an interview). In some ways, it's about institutional memory, but that seems like an even worse page title. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"Final press conference"? "Goodbye Tour"? 1/2 :-). The problem is that the compound phrase "exit interview" has a linguistic implication apart from the mere composition of sequence term and interview. Sort of like "first date". Maybe "retrospective interview", though that's a bit wordy. I understand you've already created the page. Still, the "exit interview" phrasing seems "off" to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In my mind, one of the great beauties of (MediaWiki) wikis is that redirect functionality is built-in, allowing pages to easily be renamed. (Having recently used a DokuWiki installation, I have newfound appreciation for what I previously felt were standard wiki features.) Feel free to move the page to a better title and/or create redirects, as it suits you. And, of course, if you'd also like to submit a few questions, I think that would be wonderful. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But I wouldn't touch any sort of rename/redirect of the page myself. It is most emphatically not worth the risk of setting off some sort of edit-war from someone assuming bad faith or taking the opportunity to name-call. I don't feel strongly about it, merely writer's dissonance. Regarding questions, I'm not against these kind of events, but they aren't a forum for hard-hitting examination. The respondent can just have a PR firm write the replies. If one asks, e.g. "Why do you think the pornography (err, "controversial material") mess at Commons never blew up into a truly major scandal, and how long will that hold?" (a question where I'd truly like to know the answer!) the reply will be akin to "there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
My father is fond of saying that the answer is no if you don't ask. That is, I think discussing lessons learned from events exactly like the controversial content debate is what this exit interview process is intended for. A typical exit interview involving an employee and a human resources person would never discuss such matters. An exit interview between the Wikimedia community and the outgoing Executive Director (or outgoing Board members... Ting is on his way out) would be an excellent forum for such questions and answers, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jan-Bart,

I'm a Dutchman, born in Utrecht city, living and editing in Arezzo province, Tuscany, Italy. Is there a profile the new director of the Wikimedia Foundation needs to have; if the answer is 'yes' where can we find it? Thank you very much indeed for an answer and who knows TTYL,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm administrator on OmegaWiki as Patio. My old name I changed on most projects, because it was yet in use on e.g. English Wikipedia).
Hi Klaas, there is as yet no job description. For this and other inquiries please see: Transition Team

A cookie for you!Edit

Hiya Jan-Bart. I haven't seen you comment in a while, hope everything is good. Please accept this cookie for no apparent reason. (Also, I'm secretly trying to break the stroopwafel addiction around here....the cookie shall rise again! So shhhh ;) ) Theo10011 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you , trying to cut down on sugar, so giving this to my daughter. Everything is fine.. just busy at the end of the schoolyear :) c u in hong kong right? Jan-Bart (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal and Moral Rights?Edit

In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."

We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."

So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board. JKadavoor Jee 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Transition team update?Edit

Hi Jan-Bart. I noticed the call to questions for the ED transition team - I seem to have missed the call completely. I still added a couple of questions - I'm sure its late, so, sorry about that. I wanted to ask if you could maybe update the transition team page when you get some free time. The timeline in particular, was a bit confusing. I didn't see a reference to any last dates for questions. And thanks for taking a lead and working on this for the board - I know it's a thankless job but - Thank you! ;) Theo10011 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello. Could you please categorize update pages you create in the future? Just Category:Executive Director Transition Team is enough. I know you link them, and that the title/content is enough to tell the subject, but I am currently trying to clear Special:UncategorizedPages. Thank you. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try my best, thanks for pointing it out :) Jan-Bart (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please do the new one too? :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I just added it to a category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-SUL accountEdit

Hi Jan-Bart, I noticed that you do not have a SUL account. See the error on Special:CentralAuth/Jan-Bart. Have you edited any Wikimedia projects other than meta? There are 'Jan-Bart' accounts on at least two wikis, both with zero edits. e.g. is nl:User:Jan-Bart owned by you? Have you tried claiming 'en:User:Jan-Bart' by contacting User:Ral315? John Vandenberg (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please support Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot_1Edit

Hi Jan-Bart, as you may be aware we have established procedures on our projects and Commons is no different. From time to time we have discussions which see mass participation as a result of canvassing, and sometimes this canvassing uses WMF BoT statements of support. So that our Commons Bureaucrats won't be seen to be acting outside established Commons policy, could you possibly organise for the BoT at their meeting next week to publish a statement of support on Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot_1, because such statements hold a lot of weight. Failing a BoT statement of support, perhaps you could provide your personal input at this bot request. Thanking you in advance. Russavia (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


My name is Sandister Tei, a Wikimedian (en:wp, commons) and a student at Cardiff University-JOMEC. I am writing a feature about Wikipedia and I would like to interview you for it.

I believe well-meaning editors of the wiki work tirelessly to make sure information is reliable however, the distrust by academia continues for obvious reasons.

The questions I have are:

1. Do you think validation/acceptance of Wikipedia by academia will be an important step in the life of the wiki?

2. Does the wiki even need such validation?

3. What is the ultimate remedy Wikipedia can create to end vandalism once and for all?

4. Is such a remedy even possible?

5. Some Wikipedians I have interviewed previously believe Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be perfect or an academic reference, but it aspires to be useful- merely a first point of call. Do you agree?

Thank you. See you in London hopefully.​

Sandiooses (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

HI Sandister, I am sorry I have been neglecting this page apparently, are you still working on this? Jan-Bart (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jan

Would it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to endorse the All Trials Petition? (see how and the text of the petition.) IMHO this is in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation (Some editors will be able to use the otherwise unpublished science to improve wikipedia).

Spiral Staircase (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about it, but will check Jan-Bart (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?Edit

Dear Mr. De Vreede,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference ( "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants.

Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Chapters vs user groupsEdit

Hi Jan, i think I found the conversation you were referring tomearlier [1] I responded there to questions from Pete. However If you could look into the situatuon further, I would appreciate it. The last communication We've had at all with AffComm was over a month ago and this was because I posted a complaint to Wikimedia-l. --Thelmadatter (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Because I am now Affcom Liason I will check, however I will be on vacation for the next two week so it will probably be at the beginning of September. Jan-Bart (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Jan-Bart Just a friendly reminder about this case. Thank you!Thelmadatter (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I just received an email today stating that AffComm has denied Wiki Borrego's request for user group status.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WMF superblocks it's communityEdit


since Erik doesn't answer, I'm now sending this remark to some other WMF officers and board members. I apologize for using your time.

I'm a crat in german wp. The so-called super-protections that Erik Möller/User:Eloquence and User:JEissfeldt (WMF) have put on our common.js on sunday, acting officially on behalf of WMF, have left some blood on the carpet. Many fellow wikipedians are upset, even those who accept the media viewer (which had been the conflict's origin). Several long-time contributors have left or stopped editing due to this. Journalists picked up the case.

Personally, I strongly protest against the WMF's action, and it's failure to communicate afterwards. Our communities are capable, and willing, to handle problems like this without office-actions.

There have been no official or private comments from WMF in the last days, so I'd like to suggest you have a look and give some response to the criticism.

(apologize again, for my translation errors)


Links to ongoing discussions in german language: [2], [3], [4]

Greetings, -MBq (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i second MBq's request and also e.g. this post by Rich. This issue is not taken lightly especially among german wikipedians. Regards, Ca$e (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind replying to my question?Edit

I asked you in a section above ([5]) and see that you have since responded to another, but not me. Would you mind replying to my question about why you as a trustee in the board meeting earlier this year supported modifying the Access to Non-Public Information policy to grant privacy-invasive IP and other information about editors to completely anonymous administrators? Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for your honest, forthright and insightful statement on Lila's page. It's nice to see that there is some vision and leadership at WMF. The dynamics that brought WP from obscurity to top five Google fame no longer serve it in my opinion. Much of the editing community has become entrenched and is in many ways an obstacle to its own progress. WP needs to transition to the next level and that will require change both on the side of WMF and the editing community. The purpose of my message here is to let you know that there is a significant (non-vocal) segment of the community that would appreciate and support further leadership and change from WMF as WP transitions to the next level. Its is unfortunate that in the current mob rule scenario, good ideas and good people are often shouted down at the behest of a vocal minority. I have seen this at every level of WP from the smallest policy change to the broadest software implementation. Good luck in your quest. Best, --Keithbob (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I really do think we need to take this to the next level. I can see that the discussion is becoming a broader issue, and I hope we can have it in a friendly manner in the coming weeks, months & probably years. Jan-Bart (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I also came here to thank you for your comments on Lila's page. I particularly wanted to thank you for staying calm and making thoughtful and insightful comments. While certainly there is a great deal of conflict going on right now, there is no reason for all of the hate that I have seen lately. I have been very happy to read your especially civil comments. Thank you. Zellfaze (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  The Anti-Flame Barnstar
I hereby award you The Anti-Flame Barnstar. Thank you for keeping your cool and helping so much to try to promote understanding and discussion amongst everyone in this difficult time. I can't imagine its been easy! Zellfaze (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been away from bandwidth for my vacation, so a little late reply: thank you, I am honored and grateful! Jan-Bart (talk)

Support for LilaEdit

You might want to remove "finding the next Executive Director for the Wikimedia Foundation" from your user page. NE Ent (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, thanks :) corrected it. Jan-Bart (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Dag Jan-Bart zou het handig zijn uw naam te vermelden op het lemma? Lotje (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A desperate scream from outside of the echo chamberEdit

"The main source of [Wikipedia's decline] is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." - The Decline of Wikipedia.

Is anything seriously being done about this by **you** today? Any widespread structural change initiatives?

Everyday there are more warnings to radically change course. This is the biggest long term problem facing the health of wikipedia. The history of technology shows that it is only a matter of time before a more inclusive upstart threatens wikipedia's dominance. Namecheapblues (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments on Wikimedia user groups approval process and agreementsEdit

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, 04:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet helpSubscribe or unsubscribe.

WMF board resolution on user rights processEdit

Please urgently get this topic/resolution scheduled for a meeting, discussed and voted; and express your opinions on the noticeboard. Thanks for your work, Nemo 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

creative ideaEdit

Hi Jan-bart, 2 of my colleagues developed an idea because they are particularly close to the cause of dementia/Alzheimer's disease. we have come up with an idea that would make people aware of the consequences of not being able to count on all of the knowledge that you were once used to know. I wanted to reach out to share the idea with you, because I think it would be beautiful if we could link this idea to the strongest knowledge repository of our world: Wikipedia. we are doing this in preparation of the world Alzheimer/world dementia day on September 24. It would be great to get in touch. just need 5 minutes of your time to explain the purpose ! Kind regards, Sylvie Versteylen | Sylvie you can contact me at janbart AT :)

Did you ever attend Wikimania with your money? Talk to us!Edit

TL;DR: Fill a short Wikimania survey, it takes 5 min.

Hi, I'm writing you because you are listed in Wikimania/Frequent attendees. As you probably know by now, Wikimania 2016 Esino Lario wants to achieve a Wikimania format which allows people to "get things done" and leave the conference fully satisfied with the result of their investment of time and other resources (see pillars 2 and 4: ). For this purpose, we consider all audiences (see ).

Participants other than scholarship recipients and reimbursed representatives are one group we heard very little from, but we think they are important because: 1) they have financial resources and help make the Wikimania budget sustainable; 2) they have motivation to share and ideas on what makes Wikimania valuable.

We set up a form mainly to collect names of some such people and talk with them later: if you provide your contact, we may write you on this topic. We may release aggregate data from the resposes; data will be handled by us and the Wikimania 2016 fiscal sponsor "Ecomuseo delle Grigne" (under EU law). Please fill the whole form, it's short!

Feel free to forward this invite to anyone.

Federico Leva and Martin Rulsch
Wikimania 2016 team, scholarships subteam
08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My talk page: User_talk:MmcannisEdit

Why can't somebody move User_talk:Mmcannis~commonswiki to my talk page for Wikicommons? sincerely Mmcannis (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The sum of all knowledge: what does that really mean? Please an explanatory text.Edit

Beste Jan-Bart,

Sum = total OR sum = summary, gist, upshot, encyclopedic bottom line ("the sum of the novel")?? Begreep ik het goed dat je aan Jimmy Wales uitleg zou vragen op Wikimania 2019? Mag deze uitleg tot een geautoriseerde tekst voor algemeen gebruik leiden? Goede Mania gewenst, welbedankt en groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Beste Hans, volgens mij was dat meer een losse opmerking van mij. Het vragen hoe "Jimmy het ooit bedoeld" heeft is niet zo nuttig als de vraag wat we nu willen bereiken als (Nederlandse) Wikimedia beweging. Kort samengevat: aangezien een willekeurig artikel in Wikipedia voor sommige mensen essentieel is om onderdeel te zijn van de "Summary" en voor anderen totaal niet ben ik altijd van mening geweest dat het hier om de "total" definitie gaat. Het kiezen voor de "smalle" uitleg geeft alleen maar ruimte voor meer discussie over wat er wel en niet thuishoort in Wikipedia, en gezien het feit dat er veel groepen zijn geen goede vertegenwoordiging hebben in onze gemeenschap ben ik bang dat juist deze groepen het slachtoffer worden van een besluit om Wikipedia te beperken tot de "Summary"...--Jan-Bart (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sunday August 23: Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetingEdit

Strategic flock of Wikimedians heading in a new direction.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a proposed forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

The idea is to follow up on the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting and other strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sunday September 20 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetingEdit

Birds of a feather flock together.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August SWAN meeting and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, this month we are meeting on Sunday September 20, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sunday October 25 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetingEdit

Friendship is a movement value.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the September and August SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including the recent proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, this month we are meeting on Sunday October 25, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sunday November 29 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetingEdit

Take flight with us.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, and October SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including the recent proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, this month we are meeting on Sunday November 29, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

(Note that the UTC times of 03:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC are the same as before, although a number of places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sunday January 10 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meetingEdit

Into the blue.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, October, and November SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including SWAN input on Interim Global Council and Movement Charter, this month we are meeting on Sunday January 10, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

To start the exchange of ideas on the IGC early, and to help prepare before the SWAN calls, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this etherpad. If you like a more interactive way of discussing, we have also made a jamboard. Check here for more details.

--Pharos (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)