here is a short url created using Google URL shortner
https://goo.gl/pR1SAf
On 26 October 2017 at 10:49, Biyanto Rebin
wrote:
> Dear Lodewijk,
>
> The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
>
Dear Lodewijk,
The link is broken too. Here is the the clickable link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
Cheers
2017-10-26 9:45 GMT+07:00 Lodewijk :
> funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a
funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
place:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
Eligibility_Criteria
Hope more luck this time!
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Unbroken link for those on
Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
018/Eligibility_Criteria
A.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> aside from the
Hi all,
aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks for
the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
I have received
Hoi,
It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
the
Chris,
As Cornelius wrote, this conversation will be a part of phase 2
discussions which are supposed take place in many different places,
on- and offline. We won't just put the cart before the horse. I
envision the movement strategy process to also offer space for
conversations about how
Hoi,
When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
seeking.
So what do you think all these others have to add to what a
So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
about the future of the
Hi Lodewijk,
One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy
I just want to add my 2p on this.
I raised my eyebrows last year when so many people were invited to WMCON
but I could see the rationale for one-off face-to-face strategy
conversations.
However I am concerned by the idea that WMCON is now turning into a large,
standing,
While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
Affiliates have no authority over content, just like the WMF has no
authority over content, to imply otherwise whether intentionally or by
accident of design is a problem we need fix ensuring that that line isnt
crossed. Not only do legal and liabilities make this a must, for
affiliates in
Hi all,
Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that “representing” is not the right
word.
I wrote:
“The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active editors
[>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or have an
affiliate, which is not eligible because it was
The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
the affiliate model has become very different.
Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
topics to varying degrees.
In some
Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has always
been to discuss matters of common interest to movement *organisations*.
Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as representatives for any
wider groups such as speakers of a specific language, or editors of
I agree the risks involved with having projects including language
wikipedias as recognised groups and represented by individuals will expose
both them and the WMF to legal obligations. At the moment WMF is at arms
length to the contributing communities as are affiliates, that's an
important
We absolutely do not want language communities to be under the control of
local chapters or user groups, for a multitude of reasons, one of the many
being that the chapters are organized by country (or even by territory)
whereas language communities are organized differently.
I think the idea
I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
groups, language communities should be allowed to choose their
representatives if
Just a quick reaction from Cornelius' message and Lodewijk's answer. I will
reply with my thoughts more in detail once I get back in Canada as I'm
still in France after the Wikiconvention.
I also think that we need a better defined official goal of the Wikimedia
Conference to address this issue.
That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)
As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia Conference
would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For the
Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy
I share the questions of Lodewijk
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> Of course, I meant:
>
> "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will end
> sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
>
> Thank you
> Cornelius
Of course, I meant:
"The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will end
sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
Thank you
Cornelius
--
Cornelius Kibelka
Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
for the Wikimedia Conference
Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius
Thanks Cornelius,
just to check: you're working from the assumption here that language
communities are being represented by geographic chapters (German
represented by WMDE, English by WMUK (??), Dutch by WMNL)? This is the
first time I hear someone in an official capacity change the approach to
Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will take
place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
(same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
program themes
27 matches
Mail list logo