[WMCEE-l] What the meeting is good for?

Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov at gmail.com
Sun Nov 16 14:04:37 CET 2014

Regarding the disussion, about whats in common and what not, I agree with
what was previously said. Only one big thing, which we have in common, is
that we are Post-Comunist countries seen by the West as Eastern Block
(excluding Austria and Greece, why Germany is not included?). But this may
bring some other problems, which I would see in the social area and in the
legal/behavioral/institutional area.

So I had a look on this years strenghts/weekneses/needs (and add the data
from previous evaluations) and tried to identify in which we are good and
in which we are not so good and we need further help. Surprisingly or
not-surprisingly there is not the area in which half of the region would be
good na half of the region would be bad. There is also not the area in
which we would be totally bad or good. This show me, that we are very
diverse and its hard to find something common.

S&W cover 6 general areas:
1) content harvest (Ambassador programe, photo contest, GLAM, thematic
2) social (wikisocial events, volunteers, editors, crossboarder
initiatives, ideas...)
3) wikiprogramming (bots, javascript, tools...)
4) outreach to public (PR, media coverage, wikikonference...)
5) legal issues (govermental support, FOP)
6) funding (internal and external funging - money operations)

Of course some of the previous activites and needs mentioned may overlap
and it depends on the local context. E.g. GLAM - it may be understood as
harvesting content, social acitivity or legal problem.

The biggest strenghts in the region could be find out in content harvest
(CAP, content hunts) and social area (thematic editting), while the biggest
gaps are also in social area (lack of editors, volunters and teamwork or
selforganising) and legal issues (FOP). The overlap in the social area is
caused by "editing weeks/month", which I place in both groupes.

Most chapters are good in "photo/text hunts" week in "volunteers/editors".

So looking back to the importance of such meeting I think it could be used
to share knowledge/teach each other how to do things (as there are request
for that from some members). I am not sure, if we can help us in areas in
which are generaly week (here might be interesting to see simmilar
evaluation form Western Europe, WMF or Iberocoop - maybe we can learn from

1.1. presentations with a lot of time for Q&A
1.2. virtual content harvest event (CHE)
1.3. real CHE in Kyjev as a part of training
1.4. international CHE - we invite you to our CHE (who will pay it?)
1.5. training CHE - we will send someone to your country who will train you

For 1.4. and 1.5. is needed funding. Do we have to look for it locally in

Identify the source problems and set, what should be done or who should be
asked for a help. E.g. Lack of teamwork/cooperation is a problem, but there
is probably a cause to this problem, which should be firstly identified to
be removed.

If we have people for that, we can do it like in the case of content
harvest, or we may pay professionals. So learn it or pay for it.

Here I would start to identify causes/problems, but we may also learn from
each other how to organise a public event.

Here we does not have nothing in common. Some countries are EU members.
They may have build up a commons strategy. Wikimedians from countries with
a strong affiliation to Russia may also create a commons strategy. And the
others probalby should fight on their island. Or are we able to work on a
broad commons strategy? I wonder what does it mean it there is no FOP? Is
there a strategical/millitary reason behind? Is it still important in all

Money operations are closeselly related to LEGAL and SOCIAL issues. So I
would see here, that EU members would have easier common way to help each
other, than non-EU members. But all of us has in common a social site of
this issue.


Source tab:

2014-11-16 10:45 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com>:

> Yes.. and the pardox of the situation is that the only "lingua franca"
> for the teritory is actually English :-) + some countries are at the
> war at the moment or they have been quite recently.
> 2014-11-16 9:03 GMT+01:00 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian at wikimedia.hu>:
> > Laura,
> >
> > Iberocoop is a culturally homogeneous community with no language
> > difficulties at all between its members. It can be best compared maybe to
> > the UK's Commonwealth.
> >
> > Or imagine a cooperation between the UK-USA-SA-AUS-NZ-IRL-CAN and other
> > closely related "English-first" countries.
> >
> > The CEE region in contrary can be divided into at least 4 (or more)
> distinct
> > groups:
> >
> > 1) North Slavic (CZ-SK-POL),
> > 2) South Savic (CRO-SLO-RS-BIH-MAC-BUL)
> > 3) Russian-related (RUS-UKR-BLR-KAZ+wherever a sizable Russian minority
> > lives,like the Baltic states plus maybe even as far countries as ISR and
> the
> > USA)
> > 4) Baltics (EST-LAT-LV)
> > 5) Caucasus (ARM-GEO-AZE and Caucasaian Russia, -Iran, -Turkey)
> >
> > and others, like ROM-MOL, ALB-KOS or HUN with the sizable Hungarian
> > minorities in the neighbouring countries, or GRE-CYP or Turkey(-North
> > Cyprus-AZE) or others without a country (Sorbians, Rusyns, Sami, etc) and
> > the many-many more I missed listing here (one example: the Finno-Ugric
> > cooperation of FIN-HUN-EST+many ethnic groups without a country)
> >
> > The only "real" similarity is the Soviet/Communist history (but not for
> all)
> > what actually almost everybody who had wants to get rid of (and what made
> > most of those CEE countries look similar on the surface) and of course
> the
> > geo-location.
> >
> > I understand that from the UK these countries might look very similar but
> > beleive me, they are not.
> >
> > Apart from being roughly at the same part of the map if you zoom out
> enough
> > (Budapest and Astana are 4500 kms away from each other...exact same
> distance
> > as Lisbon-Moscow)
> >
> > And I have not even mentioned the history yet what gives a CZ-SK
> cooperation
> > far better chances of success than for example a CRO-RS one (not to say
> > examples like AZE-ARM...)
> >
> > Chapters would probably cooperate better than the general population
> though,
> > however ignoring all mentioned above could lead to painful fails.
> >
> > Me being from Hungary have not much in common with lets say the Kazakhs
> due
> > to the physical, linguistic and cultural distances we have between us.
> >
> > It is _absolutely not_ a bad thing just a simple fact. We are too
> different
> > and too far away from each other (in all means) to find easy ways to
> > cooperate (if we will ever try to...)
> >
> > Probably instead of pushing a single "CEE-coop" it would be better to let
> > those "natural groups" be created. (Note, many countries would belong to
> > more than one group but on different levels and depths what cold help
> create
> > more focused cooperations).
> >
> > Balázs
> >
> > 2014.11.15. 8:55, "Laura Hale" <laura at fanhistory.com> ezt írta:
> >>
> >> To accomplish goals, to be better integrated into the wider community,
> to
> >> help build the global Wikimedia brand for your own benefit, to get
> better
> >> access to grants, to find other partners in chapters to do projects
> with, to
> >> teach others what you have learned to be successful, to learn from
> others
> >> what they have done to be successful, to alert others to important
> copyright
> >> issues facing your local community, to better lobby on reforms related
> to
> >> open access to information, etc.
> >>
> >> Improving visibility in a positive way is about improving collaboration.
> >> Collaboration is at the heart of all Wikimedia projects, and what makes
> it
> >> successful.  Often, you need face to face to do that.
> >>
> >> At the end of the day, you can argue go it alone all you want.  What
> >> success has this strategy of going alone brought you?  Why is eschewing
> >> collaboration in this case the better option?  Why is not working with
> >> others a better road to success for your chapter or your Wikimedia
> project?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Laura Hale
> >>
> >> On Saturday, November 15, 2014, Juan de Vojníkov
> >> <juandevojnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And why we have to improve the visibility of wmcee comunity?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> twitter: purplepopple
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WMCEE-l mailing list
> >> WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl
> >> http://tools.wikimedia.pl/mailman/listinfo/wmcee-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WMCEE-l mailing list
> > WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl
> > http://tools.wikimedia.pl/mailman/listinfo/wmcee-l
> >
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
> _______________________________________________
> WMCEE-l mailing list
> WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl
> http://tools.wikimedia.pl/mailman/listinfo/wmcee-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tools.wikimedia.pl/pipermail/wmcee-l/attachments/20141116/5b386920/attachment.html>

More information about the WMCEE-l mailing list