3 ms·

If I recall correctly, at the time Wikimedia Taiwan was added as a "chapter", Wikipedia did not have a clear definition of what type of organizations became com

If I recall correctly, at the time Wikimedia Taiwan was added as a "chapter", Wikipedia did not have a clear definition of what type of organizations became community-based affiliate organizations, which is why there are Wikimedia District of Columbia and Wikimedia New York City chapters. I'm not sure if they have any specific restrictions on what types of groups can become chapters now (although I know there are some specific reporting requirements). The current chapters are partly an artifact of which groups were made chapters during a certain period of time and which kept up the reporting requirements. From the look at things there are some potential future chapters which are at the sub-national level: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_phase https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_... In terms of affiliated user groups, they allow people to start them with a variety of justifications, from regional groups, cultural focus groups, etc. Here's some more information about affiliate groups: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate...

dheera 6y ago
What if Wikimedia Taiwan had a chapter but that chapter wasn't listed if Wikimedia's website was accessed from a mainland China IP address? Much like Google maps shows different country border delineations depending on where you use it from? Personally the way I see it is that there are multiple simultaneous realities of the situation and if you give each region what they want to see, everyone will be happy.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Because wikimedia doesnt do shit like telling people what they want to hear. If the consequences of that is china blocks our entry to WIPO, so be it. They already block chinese wikipedia which is something the wikimedia movement cares a lot more about than WIPO
  - dheera 6y ago
    That's fair, but that also means that Wikimedia is then asserting a political opinion rather than being neutral on the issue. When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days. If Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great, I completely understand, though I feel like its fundamental mission would be better accomplished if it did not take sides on any political matters and strive to be the most neutral source of facts in the world. For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      > When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days. So in wiki-speak, this view is usually refered to as multiple-points of view, and its an idea people sometimes floated in the early days (i think their was a fork called wikiinfo or something at one point) Its very different from neutral point of view as understood by wikipedia. The goal of neutrality is to come up with a single consistent narrative that all parties agree is fair and accurate (porportionally). Of course that can be very difficult at times, its more a journey than a destination. In my mind this is actually the killer feature of wikipedia. Without this we may as well just all host apache web servers or write articles on geocities. >if Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great Wikimedia does not want to do anything. Wikimedia largely speaking wants to allow some folks in Taiwan to form what is basically a local user group so they can try and talk some museums into uploading photos and maybe have a conference. The contents of the Taiwan article is a local wikipedia matter, and is not something wikimedia (in whatever sense you mean) should have a say in. Generally speaking though, wikipedia does not want to support the majority view of anyone, but explain all views proportionally as represented in reliable secondary sources. Of course that can be difficult at times. > For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island. Well yes, but nobody is really fighting about the bird articles

dheera 6y ago

What if Wikimedia Taiwan had a chapter but that chapter wasn't listed if Wikimedia's website was accessed from a mainland China IP address? Much like Google maps shows different country border delineations depending on where you use it from? Personally the way I see it is that there are multiple simultaneous realities of the situation and if you give each region what they want to see, everyone will be happy.

bawolff 6y ago
Because wikimedia doesnt do shit like telling people what they want to hear. If the consequences of that is china blocks our entry to WIPO, so be it. They already block chinese wikipedia which is something the wikimedia movement cares a lot more about than WIPO
- dheera 6y ago
  That's fair, but that also means that Wikimedia is then asserting a political opinion rather than being neutral on the issue. When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days. If Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great, I completely understand, though I feel like its fundamental mission would be better accomplished if it did not take sides on any political matters and strive to be the most neutral source of facts in the world. For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days. So in wiki-speak, this view is usually refered to as multiple-points of view, and its an idea people sometimes floated in the early days (i think their was a fork called wikiinfo or something at one point) Its very different from neutral point of view as understood by wikipedia. The goal of neutrality is to come up with a single consistent narrative that all parties agree is fair and accurate (porportionally). Of course that can be very difficult at times, its more a journey than a destination. In my mind this is actually the killer feature of wikipedia. Without this we may as well just all host apache web servers or write articles on geocities. >if Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great Wikimedia does not want to do anything. Wikimedia largely speaking wants to allow some folks in Taiwan to form what is basically a local user group so they can try and talk some museums into uploading photos and maybe have a conference. The contents of the Taiwan article is a local wikipedia matter, and is not something wikimedia (in whatever sense you mean) should have a say in. Generally speaking though, wikipedia does not want to support the majority view of anyone, but explain all views proportionally as represented in reliable secondary sources. Of course that can be difficult at times. > For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island. Well yes, but nobody is really fighting about the bird articles