I am not sure if this is about the same thing. I read Alec's questions as being about content projects that want to affiliate themselves with Wikimedia - want to become the new Wikimedia project. I know that in the past this question has lived for example with OmegaWiki/WiktionaryZ . SJ, would you consider this to be similar to Wikimedian groups who want to have a slightly more formal relationship with the Movement?
Lodewijk 2011/7/13 Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> > We're discussing setting up an "Affiliation committee" to oversee > simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations. These > could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge -- > requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm > they are in line with our basic principles. [1] > > Wikimedia Associations could be individual wikiprojects, clubs, or > meetups run by one or more people that want to establish a lasting > identity as part of the movement. > > Third-party wikis and larger groups could be Wikimedia Affiliates. > > Both could use web-badges and icons to identify them with the movement > (derived from the WM community logo?). > > SJ > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/New_group_models > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmcon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question-- > > > > ;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation > > > > How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part > > of' Wikimedia? > > > > One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their > > website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia > > Movement". (alternate text welcome ) > > > > Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as > > "part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the > > foundation or both. > > > > Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that > > share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to > > them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across > > WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could > > allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up > > interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions. > > > > Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could > > get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares > > our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if > > someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership > > would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it > > would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement, > > very big, very diverse, and very special. > > > > ; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. > > > > External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, > > that they are "part of" something. That something should be a > > something that is connected to us. > > > > But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is > > new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't > > approve of. > > > > I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological > > affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the > > Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway. > > > > Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a > > "part of"? > > > > We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of > > the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to > > reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name > > should such projects use instead? > > > > Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like > > Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own > > efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be > > "investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt > > to help share the world's information". > > > > Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want > > and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to > > be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will > > no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend > > projects use for self-identified affiliation. > > > > So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are > > "part of", if they want to express a connection to us? > > > > Alec > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > -- > Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 > 4266 > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
