Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-23/News and notes

Little correction

The auditors consider it critical that [last year's 8th] General Assembly’s resolution. The 8th General Assembly was not in last year, but in 2011. --DaB. (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: corrected. Tony (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Impact of funding

So, affiliates have asked for more than US$ 5 million. It's a lot of money. Also, 8 out of the 11 organizations are European (the other three are from Argentina, India and Israel).

I'm worried about the impact of this funding. Wikimedia should fund projects that have an impact on a large number of people, especially those who usually get the least from other entities, and in a meaningful way.

With pretty much zero resources, in WM Uruguay we managed to produce over 7,000 photos in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, a lot more than many countries with larger populations and stronger chapters.

With a little money and a strong community, a lot could be made in underdeveloped countries like mine. That's what the foundation should do: promote to build strong communities and fund projects with major impact. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Funding is only available to chapters which request it. That means having a vibrant group that has clear, definite goals, and ones that will be advanced with money. Apparently there are more chapters in Europe than other areas that are organized enough to request funds. If WM Uruguay can use money to advance it's goals, then they should draw up a proposal. Dozens of independent individuals do not require funding, an organization with employees does. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We talking about much less money, that's founded in Germany. The german Comunity has a right, that some of the money comes back - the people give it at first for their own Wikipedia version. Since Founding Wikimedia Germany alwyas was willing to give a lot awy. Money, knowledge etc. But Wikimedia Germany only reached the point were they are now, because of the ywere the first. They had the forst meet-ups, the first chapters, made the first bigger conferences and so on. So there are structure. Structures they only there because we worked hard in Germany on it. Next year as a chapter for 10 years! And not the germans are guilty, that the WMF not wanted other bigger chapters between the Foundation. Maybe this will change in a post-Gardner Foundation. Because only local structures can work for a strong Wikimedia. Think global work local is here really a good idea. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: It is not a either-or. If WM Uruguay needs money from the FDC, just ask for it. WMDE collects the hole 2.4M€ from German donators – gives it to the FDC and claims it back. In addition it collects 3M€ just for the WMF and the other chapters. That’s more than enough money to distribute it to chapters that are not that well-funded. Heck, if the FDC would need more money I’m sure that WMDE would collect more if asked. --DaB. (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of the definition of "German" instead of "multilingual"

Interesting but considering Switzerland as "German" speaking chapter can create some unsatisfaction because Switzerland is a multilingual chapter. I think that the reason of the increase (but also the justification of the high FTE) may be connected easily with that point. I think that the solidity of the Swiss chapter is a little miracle considering that there is no other chapter having 4 languages to manage (the example of India for instance is not valid because the English language is used a lot). And this miracle has been realized underspending (Switzerland receives more money from donations than the overall budget of the chapter). So Switzerland has not only realized a solid chapter and faced a lot of cultural conflicts, but also underspent and I can assure that it has been a real challenge because Wikimedia/Wikipedia is strongly structured per language and not per country. It would be great to spent some sentence about this point otherwise the article may be a little bit not neutral. --Ilario (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)