Hoi,
>From my perspective, this endless talk, these ever shifting sands prevent
chapters in many ways to branch out and do things that are not necessarily
the best from a global point of view but are the best from a local point of
view. Do appreciate that many of these discussions are not happening on a
level playing field with too much consideration given to the Anglo Saxon
point of view and practice.
When I observe the funding and the allocation of money to chapters it is a
case in point. For regulatory purposes the Dutch chapter cannot use
"Wikipedia" in its funding mission because it is exclusively used by the
WMF. At the same time, the Dutch chapter is asked to support fundraising in
the Netherlands AND is asked to substantially do its own fundraising. Other
chapters do not need funding from the WMF and they do as they see fit, they
are not restricted by all this continuous talk.
I have also observed that the WMF has its own agenda and when projects fail
because of said agenda, it is still the others who are to blame. This is
something I observed in a project that I got funding for. To make it worse,
the reason why part of my project failed is remembered but not the part
where my project got screwed because prerequisites needed from the WMF were
not met.
Ask yourself, why are projects and practices to be adopted by other
languages and why is there so little that goes the other way? Do appreciate
that English is less than 50% of our traffic.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:45, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Aisha,
>
> I suggest that you contact Jaime Anstee and/or Katy Love (cc'd here) about
> this subject, because they are WMF staff who do a lot of work with
> grantmaking and performance evaluation for chapters. They might know of
> some analyses that could help you.
>
> Discussions about what kinds of resources, and what quantities of
> resources, to allocate to the chapters vs. smaller affiliates, other kinds
> of grants, and WMF-run work that focuses on content and community
> development, have been happening for years, and are likely to continue for
> the foreseeable future.
>
> Different chapters function differently, partly because of varied cultural
> and legal contexts, so there is not a monolithic model of how a chapter
> should run. The definition of "successful" varies from affiliate to
> affiliate.
>
> There has been a discussion for years about how to define and quantify
> affiliate "impact"; my personal preference is to abolish are use of that
> word. (:
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Aisha Brady <aishabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Could anyone point me towards any papers relevant to Wikimedia chapters
>> (how they function, the work they do, whether they have been successful or
>> otherwise)?
>>
>> Thank you! :)
>>
>> Aisha
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
