Talk:WikiWomen's User Group/Archive1

Worklists

Could we please have additional opinions at en:Wikipedia talk:Community portal#Highly cited women scientists without articles? EllenCT (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

i would suggest a list of work lists here, since there is a systemic attempt to disrupt workflows at english wikipedia. Slowking4 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That first one seems to be okay, for now. I nominate en:Talk:United States#RFC on relative wealth of Americans and the other discussions on that very highly read and influential article's talk page for further attention. EllenCT (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone here even care what is happening at en:Talk:United States#RFC on relative wealth of Americans? As long as patriarchical trickle downers participate in content control discussions while feminists exclude themselves, no substantial progress on wider issues is likely. The idea that someone reading a general article about a country wouldn't ordinarily want to learn about the relative wealth of minority women is absurd. It's the summary measure of their de facto racist and sexist outcomes. The idea that it is biased is manufactured to try to hide the bias of censoring it. EllenCT (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Executive Director

I would like to be your first Executive Director. I've been talking about creating this user group for months in preparation for my presentation on content gender gap at Wikimania 2015. When I arrived at Wikimania, I spoke informally with some members of AffCom regarding my thoughts on this user group, and felt supported in the quest. To my delight, we got the user group created and approved in hours. I think I'm well qualified for the task to be the first WikiWomen's User Group ED (learn about me here: en:user:Rosiestep). I hope you agree and I hope I have your support. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, I'm pleased to see your strong interest in helping WikiWomen be successful. I've had quite a bit of experience studying the different types of organizations in the Wikimedia movement. Typically User groups have a simple structure. I encourage this group to focus on finding its legs by doing simple projects and events with volunteers being funded (as needed) with Project and Event Grants or Individual Engagement Grants. After WikiWomen group out grows this type of structure then the organization can have a more formal organizational structure and decide which position would be the best one to have. For example, it could be a volunteer coordinator or project manager. I would discourage having an Executive Director as a first position. I can go into more detail later and give you examples of how current user groups are working well. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rosie, I think having a "go-to person" to start with is a good idea - I definitely don't think we need a large formal organizational structure right now, just someone in a leadership role who can take questions and help to coordinate. You are awesome and I would be really happy to see you take on that role, which I suspect will grow into something more formal as we grow as an organization. :) (To that end, I'm starting a discussion about events and grants and projects and such that people would like to see us start on!) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. I'll start another discussion about membership. I'm hopeful editors from other language Wikipedias will want to be a part of this group. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Membership

I'd like editors from around the world to know about and to consider joining the user group. It seems to me from the convos I had over the last week that not everyone is subscribed to or reads the posts on the various mailing lists. Do you have thoughts about how to reach out to other language editors, i.e. start with the chapters/affiliates? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Chapters and other affiliated organization can help spread the word. Also, reaching out to the people interested in the gender gap who were not at Wikimania and not following on Facebook. Several chapters and groups have been working on the Gernder Gap, plus we know people got funded through Inspire grants would likely be interested in connecting with people by joining this group. Also, we can give reminders to people who expressed interest but have not joined yet. But I think direct invitations are important. I suggest we individually write to people who are good candidates to join. It doesn't matter if they get several invites from several of us. Additionally, we can make a list of organizations to contact and write to them by email. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I have posted a link on the gender gap mailing list and will start contacting people individually. I am also working on getting a mailing list set up. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that there are a lot of people (myself included) that live nowhere near a chapter and even if we do follow a group on facebook, there are multiple "women's wiki" groups on FB and I'm not even sure if I'm following the right one - and if notices are posted, frankly, they get lost in the flurry of other junk that haunts a facebook feed (10 memes on cats an hour... :-P ) Posting on-wiki and the individual invites are both good ideas. Montanabw (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: You need to post a message about the whole issue at different projects' Village Pump using Distribution list. Other communities are wiling to help but are not aware of the whole problem. I bet users are more inclined to hear about Gender Gap in Wikipedia, rather than on Erasmus Prize winners, which are regularly posted to our Village Pump. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I would agree with you that users/editors would be interested in hearing about Gender Gap in Wikipedia. What sort of announcement would you suggest we post on our Village Pump? And would you be willing to assist with that or do you know someone who would? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist notices

FloNight, continuing from the discussion on GGTF about watchlist notices, I'm unsure how we go about creating watchlist notices on all the wikis, but it would be a great way to inform people if they would let us do it. Is Help:CentralNotice the place to ask? Sarah (SV) ^talk 16:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirginI agree that this would be an especially good way. I added a section to discuss a list of ways to notify and invite people. Let's see if someone who knows how joins the discussion. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I see Peter Coombe edited that page recently, so I'm pinging him in case he can advise. Peter, we're wondering whether we'd be allowed to put up a watchlist notice on several (all?) wikis to invite interested parties to the WikiWomen's User Group. Do you happen to know how and whether that could be arranged? Sarah (SV) ^talk 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and FloNight: CentralNotice is for banners which appear on every page (like the ones we use for fundraising). I don't think there is a centralised way to create watchlist notices. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick reply, Peter. Would it be inappropriate to use that system to tell people about this user group? We're trying to make sure people from all wikis get to hear about it. Sarah (SV) ^talk 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: A small message via CentralNotice might be appropriate at some point. Personally I would recommend sticking to watchlist notices if you're after engaged contributors, or at least waiting until the group is a bit more fleshed out and organised. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that a watchlist notice is also going to attract trolls. Montanabw (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of this, anywhere, in any manner, is going to attract trolls, if past history of initiatives like this is any indication. It sucks and it shouldn't be the way things are, but I'm not sure we should be letting the threat (surety...) of trolls prevent us from reaching out to people who might find the group useful/supportive. Fluffernutter (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Get a Friendly-space policy right now and enforce it. Smallbones (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See the example at Grants:IdeaLab/Friendly space. Smallbones (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: According to the eligibility requirements for Wikimedia user groups, "Your group must agree to the Wikimedia user group agreement and code of conduct", which contains the statement "You should strive to run a friendly and respectful group, and you should ensure your group's events are consistent with the Wikimedia Friendly Spaces Policy." So, there is already a safe space policy in effect for this page. It is here. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Notifications and invitations

Hi everyone,

In this section let's collect ideas about where and how to make notifications and invitations for members to this group. I started by adding a few that came to mind. Add more. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Notifications

On WMF projects:

• Watchlist notifications cross wiki- (does someone know how to do this?)
• Gender gap related groups on different wikis
• Global message delivery to the village pumps/admins' noticeboards

Off wiki:

• Facebook groups
• Twitter
• WMF affiliated groups methods of disseminating news

Direct invitations

• Inspire campaign (committee members, creator of ideas, people assisting with funded projects...)
• Gender gap project leaders on and off wiki
• Individual editors we think might be interested. Perhaps we could create an invitation template to post on talk pages.

Translation of the group's main page, and use of languages other than English on the group's talk page

Key to getting more active members from around the world will be getting the group's main page translated to as many languages as possible, and to make it clear that people can use other languages besides English on this page and other pages associated with this user group.

Could someone who is familiar with translation on meta mark the main page for translations? Also, could someone help me think of wording for a talk page notice that makes it clear that discussions and questions can happen in languages other than English on this talk page. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Great idea! Done --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Varnent, I appreciate your help. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Geographic reach

What is the intended geographic reach of the user group? I realise the glib answer is "everywhere". But how pragmatically will that be supported? I am looking at running a women's edit-a-thon but past events have had a real shortage of Wikipedians as volunteers. How will this group help with such an event (which is described as one of the group's primary purposes)? Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the group can help out in several ways. (a) If members live in the immediate vicinity, they may want to participate in person; (b) Other members might want to participate remotely (I, for example, want to participate remotely in the "editonas" of Mexico City, which I learned about this last week). (c) Seasoned editors might make themselves available for tips/support/encouragement before/during/after the edit-a-thon. Seasoned editors might be available to Skype in if the edit-a-thon facilitator would like someone to speak on, say the use of Reliable Sources; (d) The user group may eventually have grant money to support things such as buying pizza, or offer some promotional materials, such as T-shirts; (e) Members could be an extra set of eyes on articles created at an edit-a-thon and/or help with getting some edit-a-thon articles through the DYK? nomination process. Is there a certain type of assistance you'd like this group provide with edit-a-thons? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the work in edit training and edit-a-thons is "one-on-one" as new people have questions "how do I do ..." or "I did that but it didn't work". Plus the inevitable process of explaining why that image they are about to upload probably has licensing issues (the Copyright 101 conversation). That's the big need and if you can drum up more members in the vicinity, I'd be very grateful indeed. As far as I know, I am the only female volunteer in Brisbane; The on-wiki help is somewhat useful in terms of running interference with the newbie-unfriendly members of the community, but less so in terms of assisting the participants as they generally won't understand Talk or possess the jargon to phrase their question meaningfully - there would need to be some shared screen capability I think for remote people to support complete newbies so they could see what the newbie sees. I'd like to see some extension of time for the use of {{inuse}} negotiated to provide some "space" for new editors to make their early mistakes. Having an administrator to do user confirmation as new accounts are created would be very useful; the CAPCHAs are a pain and people who come to edit training and edit-a-thons aren't vandals in my experience. Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding meetups, can we use rolling timeslots so everyone gets an opportunity to participate? Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Calendar of events

The second WikiConference USA will be held in Washington, D.C. on October 9–11. Please consider attending. It'll be a great opportunity for us to meet-up as a group; and, like other user groups, we'll have a presence at the event. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Any financial support available for those further afield? Kerry Raymond (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Scholarships. I'll also suggest that somebody submit a session or presentation for the agenda to make the User group's presence official. Smallbones (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I started a subsection -- Calendar of events -- on our mainpage; and posted WikiConference USA plus this weekend's editathon in Mexico City to the subsection. It may not be in an optimal place so please do move it if would work better somewhere else. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Different from WikiWomen Collaboratives?

I'm always excited to see and participate in any venture that is intended to close the gendergap and promote women's wiki participation. I'm not very clear on how this is different than, or how (if) it relates to the various WikiWomen Collaboratives? I run a group in Tel Aviv (for the Hebrew Wikipedia) and share some of our activities with the collaborative page on Facebook, but other than that, haven't seen much international cooperation or communication, and I'm frankly not sure whether or not to promote this group to my members (fear of spamming with information not directly relevant to them). I'd like to understand more about the vision for this group. Thanks :) TMagen (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Great question! WikiWomen's User Group is, well, a brand new Wikimedia-approved User Group. With that, it shares the rights and responsibilities associated with other approved User Groups. WikiWomen's Collaborative is?/was? something else: a project. Its efforts were the precursor for this User Group and many members of WWC are members of WWUG. Where we go from here, well, we're just sorting that out ourselves. Right? There is a lot we can do, and together, I expect we'll be very active doing it -- supporting women-related/Wikimania-related areas within our User Group scope. Addressing your question about an international reach, I believe our success hinges on being an international group, working together, learning from each other. And already we have members from non-English-speaking parts of the world. I am a polyglot, as are other members, and being an inclusive membership across all languages falls within our scope's purview; I cannot fathom real success without it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women

I'm seeking ideas about a new WikiProject: Women. The scope of WPW is to act as an umbrella for coordinating content/listing events/documenting scholarly articles, etc. regarding women. It coordinates "things" across other women's Wikiprojects, such as artists, history, scientists, and so on; it is not a replacement for them. I've started a section on the WPW talkpage regarding choosing a logo/image. I'm thinking it would be good to merge WikiProject Women in Red (whose scope is article creation) with WPW, but, again, I seek community consensus. Thank you for your thoughts. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Mailing list

Hi Rosiestep, I was wondering whether there's any news about the mailing list. Sarah ^talk 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question, @Sarah. We have to get the mailing list sorted out/started up!

Anyone have experience with starting up a mailing list? If not, I was going to ask for help with it at WikiConference USA in October. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, yes I have. In the case of a Wikimedia list, no I haven't. But the starting point for creating a Wikimedia list appears to be here but it looks like you need authorisation which I think you obtain by emailing mailman@lists.wikimedia.org Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We are working on this now. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosie, sorry, I didn't see your earlier response. I'm hoping the mailing list can go ahead. I think it might help to invigorate people. Sarah ^talk 01:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi again Rosie, Sydney, Keilana, Montana, Kerry, what can be done to get a mailing list going? The gg mailing list is not very active for various reasons (that I could expand on if wanted, but this might not be the best place to do it). As things stand, it's not clear how active the user group is, if at all. A mailing list would certainly help. Sarah ^talk 23:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging EllenCT, Neotarf, Slowking4. Sarah ^talk 23:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We are close to launching the mailing list. The past few day we have actively worked on getting it set up and going. Should be up in running within the next week. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: thank you so much for staying connected while this gets sorted out. As Sydney mentioned, we should have the list up within a few days. There are a lot of moving parts to its creation, and we're diligently working on it. Thanks for your patience. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sydney and Rosie, thanks for the replies and for your work in setting this up. Looking forward to it. Sarah ^talk 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Keilana, Rosie, Sarah, Sydney, anyone: Is there an active mailing list for this group? I followed these instructions, but have received nothing. Is that this group's mailing list? Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the final days of 2 weeks of vacation travel and haven't looked at requests for the list since then. When I get back later this week, I'll try to sort it out. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"WikiWomen's User Group: next steps"

Hello, members, I have great news! We received word this morning that the proposed submission,"WikiWomen's User Group: next steps", has been accepted by WikiConference USA's Program Committee. It's a unique opportunity for us so let's make the most of it. Please share your ideas regarding what you'd like the panel to discuss: questions... comments... local/international events... grants... collaborations with other UGs, Chapters, international organizations... adding additional WWUG members to the panel, such as a facilitator, etc. For those of you who will be attending the conference, let's plan to have a meetup on Friday, October 9th, time TBD. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft agenda - UG meeting - 10/9/15 - Washington D.C.

Please add other items which you'd like to discuss. If you'd like to Skype into the meeting, please let me know. rosiestep[dot]wiki[at]gmail. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Develop a safe space policy, or incorporate one that already exists such as this one.
2. Create a mailing list
3. Develop Annual Plan
4. Apply for a grant based on Annual Plan
5. Logo
6. Reach out to other language Chapters

#FreeThe20 human rights campaign

Twenty women who are political prisoners are being profiled by a "free the 20" social media campaign. The campaign was launched by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. Their profiles are here. Already there is some publicity. [1][2][3]. The names are:

   Wang Yu, China
   Khadija Ismayilova, Azerbaijan
   Bahareh Hedayat, Iran
   Blen Mesfin, Ethiopia
   Meron Alemayehu, Ethiopia
   and Nigist Wondifraw, Ethiopia
   Gao Yu, China
   Aster Yohannes, Eritrea
   Matlyuba Kamilova, Uzbekistan
   Leyla Yunus, Azerbaijan
   Phyoe Phyoe Aung, Burma
   Liu Xia, China
   Bui Thi Minh Hang, Vietnam
   Judge María Lourdes Afiuni Mora, Venezuela
   Sanaa Seif, Egypt (released September 24, 2015) See note.
   Naw Ohn Hla, Burma
   Nadiya Savchenko, Ukraine/Russia
   Anonymous, North Korea
   Bui Thi Minh Hang, Vietnam
   Rasha Chorbaji, Syria

Sanaa Seif has now been released, along with 100 other prisoners, including two male al-Jazeera reporters, Mohamed Fahmy of Canada and Baher Mohamed of Egypt. The Wikipedia articles of Fahmy and Mohamed have both been updated. The Wikipedia article of Seif has not. —Neotarf (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 15th birthday - get involved!

Apologies for cross-posting the below! Read in more languages here

The 15th birthday of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia movement, is coming soon! We’re eager to make plans to celebrate on January 15, 2016.

As a way to kickstart planning around the 15th, there is a page on Meta for Wikipedia 15. Eventually, we plan for the page to have resources including:

1. Resources to plan events and meetups locally to celebrate the 15th.
2. More information on sharing birthday photos, videos, stories, Wikipedia content, and other media.
3. Tips for pitching to local media to cover your event.

Many of the sections on the meta page are blank for now, but we’ll be working with you to add more information to the page over the next few months leading up to the birthday celebration in January. Please feel free to add, edit, and discuss what you’d like to see for Wikipedia’s 15th birthday!

We look forward to celebrating with you!

-for the Wikimedia Foundation Communications team, JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Friendly space expectations

Hi everyone, Here is a link to the Friendly space expectations used in the grants name space on meta.

• Grants:Friendly space expectations

As noted above, we discussed creating Friendly space expectations at WikiConference USA in DC. This wording can be tweaked to be used in the WikiWomen's Group space. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest that we need something a bit more explicit in relation to the purpose of the group, the fundamental axioms of the group, and that discussion that questions or disagrees with those purposes and axioms is not welcome in the group (in the absence of hard evidence). For example, I notice in the gendergap mailing list we would find the conversation "but are women really underrepresented on Wikipedia?" coming up again and again (let this group take it as an axiom that there is an under-representation issue) and "does it matter if women are under-represented in Wikipedia?" (and that it does matter). Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the objectives of the group, maybe something along the lines of ... This group believes that:

• women are under-represented as contributors to WMF projects
• content about women and topics of greater relevance/interest to women is under-represented in WMF projects
• action must be taken to increase the involvement of women and the female-related content in WMF projects consistent with commitment to Openness and diversity of the WMF

And that commentary that questions or opposes the need for this group or the beliefs of this group is not welcome in [this forum] and should be made elsewhere. Instead, [this forum] welcomes only constructive discussion aimed at achieving its objectives. Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that friendly commentary that discusses the need and focus of the group needs to be categorically disallowed, as long as they don't otherwise violate friendly space expectations. Although none of them are explicitly designed for online communities, I think that adapting something from GeekFeminism's wiki could be useful. I would expect that almost everyone whose behavior runs contrary to the goals of the group would run in to a friendly space violation quickly and be removed, but I think it would be useful (in terms of avoiding complaints and harrassment from other WM affiliated groups/people) to make it clear that the problem at hand isn't one simply of idealogical pracice, but one of actively making people not feel safe contributing.) Best, Kevin (talk)

I am happy for there to be one forum where such discussion is allowed, but I think we need another forum where it is not and the focus can be on working towards the goal. Maybe what I am asking for is an anti-troll policy or just a plain old "on-topic" policy. I don't see anything safe/friendly in allowing the continued disuption by "polite" trolls. Should we all go to Project Christianity and disrupt their content discussions by repeating asking if God really does exist (citations needed!)? Kerry Raymond (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo

Proposed logo1

This proposed logo was designed by Montanabw. Please provide feedback. Other logo ideas are also welcome! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a rough design, someone with more professional software will have to redo it before it can become "final." I'm also not wedded to the design, it's just my playing with the colors and the logo concept of the affiliates... Montanabw (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, Montana, thank you for doing it! Sarah ^talk 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the logo and the colors. They show a link to the movement which I think is good. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I love the logo, but someone at WMF should be pinged about it. WMF (as most other nonprofits do,) have visual identity guidelines about the use of their marks or close interpretations of their marks, and I have a feeling that without a few edits this logo would likely run afoul of them. Although there's been a lot of WMF reshuffling lately, @PEarley (WMF): (User:The Interior on ENWP) should be able to at least point us in the right direction to make sure no issues arise. Best, Kevin (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hey folks, thanks for reaching out, and congrats on the progress with the new user group! As Kevin mentions, there are guidelines about logos and trademarks at Visual identity guidelines. The best way to start that process is to email trademarkwikimedia.org with a link to this thread. From there, someone with our legal or communications department will be able to give better guidance than I can. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the guidance PEarley (WMF). I've sent that email. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for reaching out to us, Rosie. It’s wonderful that you’re working on a logo to represent the WikiWomen’s User Group! Instead of a modified version of the WMF logo, which, under our trademark policy, would only be able to be used on-wiki, we encourage you to create a new logo of your own or modify the community logo. As mentioned in the user group agreement, user groups are free to use the Wikipedia affiliative mark or the Wikimedia community logo in their own logos. For examples of groups that have done a great job creating their own logos, see Wikimedistas de Colombia, Wikimedistas de Ecuador, Wikimedia LGBT, Cascadia Wikimedians, and Wiki Project Med. Best, Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is an exciting challenge for us. Any objections if I reach out to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design as a source for additional ideas? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Previous logo redone using the wikimedia community logo

I redid Montana's logo using the community logo as a base. Amusingly the overall shape still came out remarkably similarly to the foundation logo, but that's totally just a coincidence. Yes. Anyway, hope it helps. Let me know if you want something else or changes or whatever. -— Isarra ༆ 19:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Isarra; looks good! I got a note that @Jen is going to create with one, too; looking forward to seeing it! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Isarra can you make the blue circle end a little higher up, so that it doesn't end below where the green starts? (Does that make sense?) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As much as that would make it more balanced, I worry that would bring it too close back to the foundation logo - where it ends now is just the breaks you see in the community (meta) logo. They are remarkably similar to begin with, however. I don't even know. -— Isarra ༆ 07:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ENWP's upcoming arbcom elections - please vote if you are eligible and have an opinion

Hi all -

I'll be circulating this to multiple lists, in part to ensure that everyone is aware of both the importance and ability of ENWP's arbitration committee, and in part to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is aware that they are eligible to vote, and aware that their votes are anonymous - and aware of how significantly they can count. Although oppose votes do carry more weight than neutral votes or support votes, in our last tranche of elections (which had a steep decline in voters from previous elections,) an arbitrator was elected with only 227 support votes, and a total of only 593 votes cast in relation to that arb in general.

The arbitration committee has, for all practical purposes, binding decision making ability on all matter that come before the English Wikipedia. For members of that committee to have been elected on the basis of only 227 support votes seems (sorry to the arb in question for using him as an example) absolutely bizarre to me. The arbitration committee is the body ultimately responsible for ensuring the health of ENWP's community, including on issues of gender, harrassment, and everything else. I'm not going to suggest who you vote for (especially because another three weeks of nominations are coming in,) but if you are concerned about the state of ENWP's community, please take the minimal time necessary to scrutinize candidate statements and cast your anonymous votes according to those candidates who you believe are most likely to represent your interests.

In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, the GG-L list alone has over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom elections, many of whom have not done so before, and I'd expect the same to be true of people involved in the WikiWomen's usergroup. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in.

If you meet the fairly minimal requirements to vote, please take the fairly minimal time out of your day once elections start to cast your anonymous votes in favor of the candidates who best supports your interests and the interests of the community - and I know that even on this list, there are certainly people who will disagree with me about what candidates will be represent the interests of the community, and am totally fine with that - vote how you want to vote. But vote! ENWP's final ruling body shouldn't be determined by a small fraction of eligible voters who will all be effected by the decisions our next arbcom makes:

These are literally the only requirements to vote in the English Arbcom's upcoming elections: "(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2015 (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015 and,(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote. (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote."

If you meet those requirements, please consider the candidates and their position statements and their answers to questions, and vote for whatever candidates best think represent how you would like the future of ENWP's community to be.

If you're interested in running yourself, but not sure what it entails, please contact me offlist, and I can walk you through a lot of what you'll be dealing with. Also of note, even though we've never had an arb who has not yet been an admin, there's no actual requirement that arbitrators be admins.

P.S. Apologies for all the references to "on-list" above - I'm distributing this in a variety of places, most of whom are lists, but WWUG doesn't have a functioning listserve yet, and didn't change all references. Best, Kevin (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Kevin. As this is the first time I was aware of this voting and suspect it may be true for others, here's a link to get you started. Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• You're a picture-perfect example of why I'm trying to disseminate this type of info further. You have over 55k edits on ENWP.. and weren't aware of upcoming arbcom votes, even though arbcom is the body on ENWP directly responsible for issues of harrassment etc (and has punished women who have come up before it far more harshly than men who have come before it within the last couple years.) Women editors (some of whom certainly deserved some sort of block or admonishment) have been indefinitely banned in cases where the male editors' involved (whose behavior was at least as bad and in many cases worse) received at most the tiniest wristslaps imaginable. With only 593 voters total involved in electing an arb last year (and a lot of those were oppose votes!) tapping in to the group of people who are unaware that they even can vote can potentially allow us (and I mean a broad 'us' in that sense) to effectively change create change on the highest level of ENWP. I'll post updates here (and in other relevant places) as the election cycle progresses. Best, Kevin (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If I am eligible to vote, why don't I get a message on my User Talk page with the relevant details? Isn't that the best practice way to run any democratic election? I'm guessing those involved don't want a democractic process. Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a question I'd directly thought of before. I can see a few problems in practical implementation (like avoiding known secondary accounts,) but agree wholeheartedly that especially in a situation where we have (at a minimum) thousands of eligible voters yet ENWP's top moot court has people being elected with only 273 support votes, that informing eligible voters directly (instead of the ambiguous banners that are currently used and frequently missed) that they are eligible to vote with a brief neutral message is absolutely a good idea and will be talking with others about ways to implement it technically, and to push for it politically. For comparison.. you've edited ENWP more than five times as often as I have! I'll hold my tongue on any guesses about whether or not intentionality is involved or if it was simply something not suggested before, but would encourage you to read the atlantic piece in the section below. Kevin (talk)

I think if a message was sent directly to the eligible users, it could include a reminder to vote only once if you have a valid alt account (as I do), although I think the people who openly declare their valid alt account are unlikely to abuse it. It's the undeclared sockpuppets that are the more likely problem for multiple votes, but that's a separate can of worms. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: - scrutineers should be able to filter out a lot of even undeclared socks. Some would certainly get through, but anyone who really wants to multivote in an arbbcom election can figure out an easy enough way to do so anyway if they really want to. As a heads up to you (and anyone else interested,) there's a discussion about the idea of massmessaging eligible voters on my ENWP talkpage, where I used your editstats as an example (I hate to use particular editors in examples normally and apologize if it bugs you - but the fact that you have as many edits as you do and weren't aware you could vote kind of boggles the mind (unless you were being sarcastic, in which case the discussion is both probably of interest to you as an idea, and to correct me, heh. The relevant discussion is here. (I chose to start just on my own talk until I had a concrete idea that would avoid technical issues.) 2014 only had 61% the number of ballots cast as 2013, which is an astounding figure. Kevin (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Kevin, I appreciate that you want to make the committee fully representative, but what we need is an informed electorate, and one that isn't steeped in Wikipedia's dysfunctional way of doing things. I'm not sure we can achieve that within the current dispute-resolution format. One solution might be to abolish ArbCom and start a jury system, with small groups chosen to resolve particular issues. At least that way, if there's a problem with some members, it won't carry over to the next dispute. Juries examining cases involving harassment or gender-gap issues could be chosen with extra care. Sarah ^talk 19:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that we can either - but I find it disturbing that the 2014 arbcom tranche (and its subsequent influence on decisions) were a result of approximately 60% of votes as the 2013 tranche. I agree we need wider reforms... but informing eligible voters (although I'm tempted to suggest only eligible voters who have edited within the last 3 or 6 months) would be a good initial step towards improving ENWP's climate, and should be possible to do before this cycle. I can think of tons of eligible voters who probably don't realize they are eligible who also have a strong potential interest in Arbcom decisions. Brian Carver's classes are responsible for a huge number of ENWP's better articles about cyberlaw, yet since he personally normally edits anonymously, he only has something like 300 mainspace edits under his account - but certainly has an interest in improving ENWP's climate and would probably vote (if he doesn't already, I haven't asked.) Since his classes have also used significant Wikipedia-based assignments for six years, he's also potentially very effected by, say, an arbcom decision regarding the EP (which was definitely an incoming situation before the WEF, and will likely eventually happen anyway.) Similarly, the GLAM community has a lot of people like Sara Snyder who meet voting requirements, may not realize it, would likely spend the time to educate themselves to vote for candidates that support their interests and values, and are likely to spend the time to figure out what candidates those are. (I'm only naming those two because they are prominently and publicly involved in atypical activities on ENWP and both have a good chance of being severely effected by arbcom decisions, but I'd expect tons more eligible voters are similar.) Bigger reforms are likely necessary, but informing eligible voters is a good first step (and really is standard everywhere else, heh.) Kevin (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I support everything that Kevin is saying here. Fundamental changes in the way Wikipedia is governed are worth pursuing as well, but we all know that will take some time. The informed electorate idea is great, and the single best way to do that would be through a voters' guide. There are other ways as well. Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi all - since the idea originated here, it seems only fair to mention that I've initiated a straw poll about whether or not it's appropriate for me to use my own admin toolset to carry out Kerry's basic idea on ENWP's Administrator's Noticeboard, [4]. Kevin (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

New article in The Atlantic about the sexism of Wikipedia: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women. 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting this. I'd encourage everyone to read this... and keep in mind the previous section here about why it's important to vote in arbcom elections. Kevin (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This article in The Atlantic was the first I'd heard of this Meta page WikiWomen's User Group. Was it posted / advertised anywhere ? -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I know it's been mentioned on at least a few lists, wiki-related conferences, and at least a few places on-wiki. It's before affcom right now, and has been in the works for quite a while. I wish I could give you direct pointers to places it's been mentioned, but unfortunately have to much wiki stuff in my head to recall (not to mention me missing a good chunk of the last year.) A global "what links here" button would be hugely useful for stuff like this, but I don't want to throw another issue on tech's platter, heh. My email archive confirms it's been discussed on both gendergap-l and wikimedia-l multiple times. Kevin (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A word from Lightbreather

There are a couple small errors in the piece, but overall I think it's a great article. Thanks to Emma Paling for reaching out to me. If anyone has questions, I'll check in here for a few days.

Also want to remind the group that there is a private, women-only list for those women who are interested in discussing WP women's issues away from prying eyes: Systers-Wikipedia List. (To join the list, you must tell: 1) your Wikipedia username and your involvement in Wikipedia editing -- one or two sentences is enough, 2) that you are a woman, and 3) that you HAVE READ and AGREE to follow the rules in the frequently asked questions.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a list for women and allies? -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not on Systers. Isn't that what gendergap-l is for? Lightbreather (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, haven't been on either before. How do you get to the latter ? -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you email members of this group about how to join gendergap-l. Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, here you go. ‍‍‍4nn1l2 (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a male Wikipedian

I just wanted to say thank you to Keilana for setting this up, and good luck.

I really like the opening line: The WikiWomen's User Group is a user group for women and allies in the Wikimedia movement.

It's nice that it includes "allies".

I do feel that there should be allowed to be a safe space for women-only to discuss what they wish in a friendly supportive environment, and I think Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject Women was a good idea.

But I think that including male "allies" here is also a good idea.

The unfortunate reality is that there does exist a Gender bias on Wikipedia.

And as long as that reality exists, might as well take advantage of it and try to recruit women, and men, to join a collaborative initiative to foster polite and civil dialogue — and improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to women on the encyclopedia.

However that being said, I will say there are several different WikiProjects on Wikipedia and it's difficult sometimes to figure out to which page to post a notice related to women. See for example the reorganization proposal at w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#Complete_reorganization_proposal -- it's tough to figure out clearly what's going on there, I guess w:WP:WikiProject Women will be the parent project ?

Another idea I would suggest is to have a "Good Article drive", similar to example at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Good articles — and perhaps identify key articles to improve as a wishlist.

Anyways, thanks again to Keilana for creating this page, I hope it has an end result of significant improvement in quality of articles related to women at Wikipedia.

-- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like my last suggestion is already up and running, at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women#Good_articles. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Hey, it's nice to hear from you! On en.wp at WikiProject Women in Red, we're currently planning a monthlong drive to write & improve bios of women scientists. We'd love to have you join us! Suggestions for articles, sources, and of course contributions are most welcome. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keilana, but at the moment I'm focusing on improving an article about a book by a female author, at Not in Front of the Children. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Nice to hear from you. There are quite a few conversations going on at WikiProject Women, which is wonderful! While I'm not sure that re-organization will occur in the near future, if WikiProject Women is a catalyst for conversation, it's accomplishing something important. The project serves as an umbrella, if you will, over other women's project. It has a quality improvement department, such as the Good Articles link you've included, and a redlinks department, Women in Red (WiR), which creates new content -- women's biographies and women's works, turning redlinks into blue, ergo the name. WiR's meetups are virtual edit-a-thons on various focus areas which vary from 3 days to 3 weeks. As @Keilana: mentioned, Scientists is the theme in November, while previous focus areas included Asian Pacific American women, leadership, and women in architecture and design. All editors are warmly welcome to participate, and to suggest new meetup focus areas; if I had to guess, I'd say that participation to date has been equally distributed, women and men. I've respectfully left an invitation to the scientist event on your en-wiki talkpage, and one here as well. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences] Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←

• There's still time to join this virtual edit-a-thon. To date, 35 participants have signed up, 76 "early start" articles have been created, and 78 additional articles have been created since the official start date of 8 November. There are multiple pages of redlists which makes finding a redlink easier and some have RS next to the redlink or a link to the article in another language. Let's turn this snowball into an avalanche. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Big discussion ongoing at Jimbo Wales talk page

If you haven't seen it already, there's a big discussion ongoing now about The Atlantic article and related topics, at:

• w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_Atlantic_-_How_Wikipedia_Is_Hostile_to_Women.

-- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.

Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.

Please find a bit more information on Meta-Wiki and do not hesitate to contact the Affiliations Committee if you have further questions.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

• I subscribed after it launched. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the WikiWomen's User Group mailing list

Hello everyone! Please check out the Contacts section on our mainpage. You'll see that our mailing list link is posted there. This discussion mailing list is a place to facilitate conversations regarding our User Group's scope, events promotion, blog notifications, and so on. We've also posted an email address in the Contacts section specifically for institutions, organizations, and press. Please join us in celebrating this milestone for our UG! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rosie, thank you for setting this up! Sarah ^talk 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 has a mark!

Read this message in other languages

Wikipedia 15 now has a mark! Be sure to check out the “Material” section of the Wikipedia 15 meta page to see the design, and learn about how to use it. This year's mark is meant to be fun, interactive, and infinitely customisable. We can’t wait to see how you and your Wikimedia community use it!

–For the WMF Communications team, Sam Lien and Joe Sutherland 02:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

en ArbCom Election - Candidates needed

Just a reminder that the election for ArbCom for the English language Wikipedia is coming up. I consider it to be very important that there are enough candidates who will represent the views of the people on this project (and other en Wikipedians as well, of course). Eight candidates should be enough but more candidates will not hurt anything.

The formal requirements to be a candidate are few. You need to be at least 18 years old, have registered for a Wikipedia account before November 1 and have at least 500 mainspace edits before then. You’ll need to disclose your identity to the Wikimedia Foundation and sign a confidentiality agreement if you win. You do not need to be an administrator. You can nominate yourself from November 8 to November 17.

I'm aware that some other en Wikipedians on this project may not entirely share my views on this election, and I do not want to politicize this project. So I'll suggest you take a look at my op-ed on the Signpost at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-28/Op-ed. Comments on my opinions might best be left there.

I do hope, however, that nobody will object to my suggestion that every person who meets the qualifications consider running for ArbCom in this very important election.

Smallbones (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The candidate nominations and the question period have begun. So far there are only 8 nominations for the 9 open seats. Several of the candidates IMHO look unelectable. I'd guess there are at least 2 candidates acceptable to most members of this project, probably more. In short, so far - so good, but more self-nominations are needed. See en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates for more details Smallbones (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

for those at wikiconfusa political rally, now is the time, don't make me vote no to everyone. Slowking4 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

en ArbCom elections now open

There's been a lot of interest in the ArbCom election this year and all the candidates. Please see en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 for general questions. Anybody who wants to view my recommendations for voting, please see en:User:Smallbones/ACE2015. All other voters' guides are also linked to from the top of the page.

I think that anybody who edits en:WP and is interested in this project should be interested in voting. Smallbones (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying!! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 Affiliations Committee call for candidates

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!

The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and advise the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee consists of twelve members, six of whom are selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms.

Key skills

Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We try to get a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members. The key skills and experience that we look for in candidates are:

• Excitement by the challenge of helping to empower groups of volunteers worldwide.
• Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
• Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliations, and similar questions.
• Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly ~2 hour voice/video meeting.
• International orientation.
• Very good communication skills in English.
• Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
• Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the WMF.
• Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organising are a plus.
• Effective communication skills in other languages are a major plus.
• Experience with or in an active affiliate is a major plus.
• Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.

We are looking for people who are not afraid of the workload and are motivated by helping other volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world.

Selection process

As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2015 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta (at Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2015), and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.

At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, WMF staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2016, with new members expected to join later that month.

How to apply

If you are interested in joining the committee, please send an application to affcom@lists.wikimedia.org by 31 December 2015. You will get a confirmation that your application was received.

Your application should include the following:

• Your full name
• Your contact information (including e-mail address and username)
• A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.

Your statement will be published for community review and feedback, so please do not include any information that you are not comfortable sharing.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!

Best regards,
Carlos Colina
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Get involved in Wikipedia 15!

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

• Join/host an event. We already have more than 80, and hope to have many more.
• Talk to local press. In the past 15 years, Wikipedia has accomplished extraordinary things. We’ve made a handy summary of milestones and encourage you to add your own. More resources, including a press release template and resources on working with the media, are also available.
• Design a Wikipedia 15 logo. In place of a single icon for Wikipedia 15, we’re making dozens. Add your own with something fun and representative of your community. Just use the visual guide so they share a common sensibility.
• Share a message on social media. Tell the world what Wikipedia means to you, and add #wikipedia15 to the post. We might re-tweet or share your message!

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Help