Talk:Wikimedia thematic organizations

RfC on Future of Education Program as a Thematic Organization

An RfC has been initiated RfC by the Wikipedia Education Working group on the future of the US Canada Education program as a Thematic Organization. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! Good luck with the RfC. If you have any questions about Thematic organisations or the recognition process, please get in touch with AffCom, we are happy to help. –Bence (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Description

This is the first page people find when they are looking for "thematic organization", so it should explain what a thematic organization is. Is it possible to include the resolution's description "Incorporated independent non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work focused on a specific theme, topic, subject or issue within or across countries and regions. Thematic or focused organizations use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia and are granted use of Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity and fundraising." or something similar to let people know more about requirements (incorporation, non-profit) and values (trademark, fundraising)? Alice Wiegand (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I might have missed this comment, but part of it was fortunately already included in the page, and I added a bit more detail. I expect this page will develop like the Wikimedia Chapters page with individuals being bold in editing it, it is not so much set in stone as the pages outlining requirements, etc. --Bence (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. --Alice Wiegand (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming

Thoughts regarding the naming of thematic organizations

from Geoff Brigham, WMF General Counsel

As the Affiliations Committee prepares to approve the first new movement entities, I was hoping that I could share with you some of my thoughts as WMF General Counsel on the issue.

As I believe all know, any groups that wish to use “Wikimedia” trademarks in their names must formally request a license to do so from WMF, and the WMF Legal Department often advises on such name proposals. The Committee will help Thematic Organizations to navigate the process of choosing an appropriate name, and upon the Committee’s recommendation, that name will go to WMF for final approval. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_Thematic_Organization_creation_guide#Agree_on_a_name.

In that context, at WMF Legal, we would like to encourage that Thematic Organizations consider adopting uniquely descriptive names and avoid incorporating the “Wikimedia” name as a universal appellation to describe their organization. Rather, we suggest that Thematic Organizations choose a name which specifically describes their relationship to the movement, such as “Editors on Wikisource for Natural Sciences,” “Wikipedia Editors of the Rod of Asclepius” or “Friends of Indigenous Languages at Wikipedia.” Subtitles such as “Wiki Loves ...” or “Wikipedians interested in …” also may serve to clearly link the groups to the Wikimedia movement.

We propose that this approach is in the overall best interests of the Wikimedia movement for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Avoidance of Confusion -- This approach helps to protect the Organizations from legal actions which are actually intended to target the Foundation. In the past, due to confusion by plaintiffs, Chapters have mistakenly received legal complaints and have been forced to defend (successfully) against costly lawsuits for content on Wikimedia projects in their languages. The media has had similar difficulty differentiating between the Wikimedia Foundation, Chapters, and the Wikimedia movement in general. Thematic Organizations may be at even greater, albeit unjustified, risk for misguided legal confusion, as they may be targeted unfairly for a variety of content within their subject areas across languages. (Of course, WMF, not the Organizations, hosts that content.) We believe that this naming policy helps to avoid the potential (and wrong) misperception that Thematic Organizations are somehow legally responsible for the content that appears on a Wikimedia project.

• Avoidance of Exclusivity -- This approach helps to avoid the appearance that a particular Thematic Organization exclusively represents the entire topic area throughout the movement. Thematic organizations may overlap with another group (e.g., History vs. Scandinavian History vs. Military History), and a user is not obligated to join a Thematic Organization if she or he wants to edit an article within that group's focus area. I suggest that we encourage names that allow a multiplicity of groups to pursue our shared mission.

• Accuracy -- A descriptive name may more accurately reflect the focus of a Thematic Organization. Using “Wikimedia” in the name may lead to confusion when multiple Thematic Organizations wish to focus on the same topic area within different Wikimedia projects (e.g. “Wikipedia Editors for Military History” vs. “WikiSource Editors for Military History”).

• Avoidance of Brand Dilution -- The Wikimedia brand is valuable, and represents the tremendous amount of hard work and goodwill created by Wikimedia community. Therefore, we should fully and carefully consider the nature and purpose of each group that operates under the “Wikimedia” trademark on a case-by-case basis.

Please keep in mind that this is a working proposal for naming guidelines. Going forward, we aim to post updated visual identity guidelines (i.e. logos) that take into consideration the naming criteria for Thematic Organizations. We are also working to finalize the text of the agreements between Thematic Organizations and WMF, and to formalize the rules for incorporating Thematic Organizations into the WMF Board selection process.

Many thanks,

Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the role of AffCom as filter is to avoid brand dilution and confusion - they seem to have done a good job so far with Chapters, and I trust them to do so here. As to accuracy, the idea behind Th.Orgs as I understand it from the MR process is precisely not to have multiple orgs focusing on the same topic across projects. Each th.org is expected to cover a topic or theme for all geographic regions and projects. Just as a chapter is expected to support all projects and not just (say) Commons. –SJ talk  19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi SJ. FWIW, that's different from what I thought/assumed. I'm trying to remember now the potential thematic org notions I've heard discussed -- e.g., the Catalan group, a group running Global Ed projects internationally, a GLAM group. I don't know if in reality the Catalan group supports all projects: it may. Global Ed is specifically Wikipedia-focused. I assume (but am not certain) that most GLAM work is Wikipedia-focused. So I don't know. I never assumed thematic orgs would necessarily support all projects, or would or should be required to. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll let Galio, Affcom's resident expert on Movement Roles expand on this a bit if he wants, but in my understanding the thematic org framework is very flexible (an organization might support a topic across all projects/subset of the projects in a given country/region/worldwide), for example the prototypical example of Amical supports the development of Catalan language content on all projects (as feasible) operating mostly in the defined regions of Catalonia in Spain, France and Italy; while the group behind Wikimedia Medicine is aiming for a worldwide organization getting content on medicine on at least Wikipedia and Commons; Wikivoyage e.V. is aiming to be worldwide but focusing only on Wikivoyage. It is indeed more unlikely that we would have separate organizations for the same topic on different projects in the same area (e.g. one Stroopwafel on Wikipedia group, and a second Wiki Loves Stroopwafel on Commons).

Somewhere along the way the idea that these thematic organizations are non-exclusive has found itself into the framework as a safety mechanism. Without this a localized group having a prior global claim on a topic could inadvertently exclude the participation of volunteers from other parts of the world (at least initially, setting up a truly worldwide organization is difficult); on the other hand I imagine it would take a bit of convincing and careful thought before Affcom were to approve a second thematic organization in the same topic acting in the same geographic area. In time, I expect,the worldwide thorgs will also develop a network of their own chapters...

The downside of this flexibility is that coming up with a general template for naming thematic organizations is difficult, especially with added proposed restrictions on the use of "Wikimedia" (which is the only good word to describe multi-project work).

I agree with SJ that once clear guidelines, or principles are agreed to Affcom will be able to implement them. (A bit of discussion is currently ongoing on this at the moment with AffCom and Geoff.) –Bence (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal comes as surprise to me. So far I thought the very idea about the affiliation process was to establish entities that are supposed to be identified with the wikimedia foundation and movement and entitled to use the trademarks, the name and the Wikiball. The groups might need to be able to present themselves as rightful representatives of the movement when talking to GLAMs or other partners. I carry business cards courtesy of WMDE with my name, contact information including an e-mail-address at the "wikipedia.de" domain and the Wikiball. The cards are incredibly helpful to establish rapport with media, cultural institutions, etc. But how about user groups without an established chapter? They need the official recognition and the trademarks. And hat might be the other reasons to become a user group than the outward symbols of recognition as part of the movement? Just the option to apply for grants at the Foundation? Don't you think removing the name ans logo would invalidate most or even all of the purpose of applying to become recognized as a user group? --h-stt !? 10:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC) (contact person for the application process of Wikimedia Munich User Group)

The Amical group's current thoughts on the matter are at [1]. –Bence (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Media organizations will still get it wrong even if we use the term "wiki". For example Wiki-leaks is often mistaken for Wikipedia. There are a few reasons to create officially incorporated organizations. One is to have a corporate platform from which to interact with other corporations. The second is to have a financial organization independent from the persons involved. As most / all of the members are editors of the Wikimedia family of site I would consider not using Wiki or Wikimedia an obfuscation of our purpose. What we want are names that show a clear affiliations with the Wikimedia Community of which these organization are a part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I second Doc James' concern. I want to be able to represent myself as a member of the Wikipedia community (or is it wiki community?) and I do not want anyone to think that I am representing the Wikimedia Foundation. I can use any names; I just want guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Geoff, I come from the talk page about Wikimedia user groups, but I think that the same is valid. About your 4 points:

• Avoidance of Confusion: Does a different name really protect the thorgs, would plaintiffs not figure out anyway that the thorgs might be good victims to sue? And how about the national chapters, should they be renamed?
• Avoidance of Exclusivity: The thorg indeed should give the impression of exclusivity, at least with regard to the 'real life' world. A national medical association is supposed to approach the (official) 'Wikimedia Medicine', because it is recognized by the WMF, and not a 'Wiki Doctors' Club' or 'Physicians for the Free Encyclopedia' (groups of persons maybe totally nice but not officially recognized).
• Accuracy: A thorg is supposed to be as inclusive as possible with regard to the Wikimedia projects, not to be only about Wikipedia but also about Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource etc. By the way, I always strongly recommend not to go public under a name such as 'wiki' because that can be anything (Wikileaks, for example).
• Avoidance of Brand Dilution: Of course not 'anybody' should receive the right to operate under the name 'Wikimedia', but those who did should exactly appear under that very name and not a different one. An outsider must see immediately that the thorg is the official Wikimedia thorg, and not only from the small letters.

For the sake of clarity, thorgs and WUGs (thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups) should operate under the name 'Wikimedia' which means that the WMF must be careful whom to allow that. indeed. We already have so much confusion about the Wikimedia world (Wikileaks, I didn't count how often journalists believed that it belongs to us). Ziko (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree with Ziko. The community operates as the Wikimedia Community and it is this community that has curated all the content we host. Thus this community should have the right to be involved with who can use this name in an official capacity and represent them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Should thematic chapters generally avoid the terms "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia"?

Would it be better for organizations to start using the term "wiki" in all places in which the terms "Wikimedia" or "Wikipedia" are often used? Should "wiki-editors" (not Wikipedians) edit "wiki" (not Wikipedia) at "wiki-meetups" (not Wikipedia meetups) organized by "Wiki organizations" (not Wikipedia/Wikimedia organizations)? Has anyone at the WMF written best practices for how it prefers its brands discussed in public? Thematic chapters will, I expect, do a lot of talking and publishing and if this is a concern then perhaps it would be good to articulate best practices. I have always used the terms "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia" thinking that this was best, but now I am wondering if this has always been troublesome for the foundation, the community, and the external public. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just leaving a brief comment here as I don't know too much about the history and background of the naming of the thematic organisations, but I do believe that generally we try to avoid referring to everything as just "wiki" as you suggest. This is because it usually ends up with people linking the phrase "wiki" with Wikipedia, which is not something that we want to do. It is the largest wiki, but then these associations cause confusion especially when WikiLeaks first caught media attention - OTRS was flooded with emails from users who mistakenly believed that it was associated with Wikipedia. Thehelpfulone 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The medical thematic group just incorporated under "Wiki Med Foundation Inc" The state of NY said we could not use Medicine due to concerns of confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it correct that this is a community logo?

Can anyone use this logo without permission to represent community Wikimedia projects?

There is a section on commons containing Wikimedia community logos. The page says that the concept was put forward by commons:User:WarX, who was the creator of the globe logo used to represent Meta-Wiki.

I would like to be able to use some logo to represent Wikimedia community projects which are unaffiliated with and not endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not want to cause any brand confusion with the Wikimedia Foundation, but in community outreach efforts, I feel the need to use something. Others must also, because the category on Commons shows that people have remixed this logo for use in all kinds of projects. However, these logos have the following template on them, so it seems that the Wikimedia Foundation asserts some claim of control over these.
Commons:Template:Wikimedia trademark
When Wikimedia project participants need to advertise their projects and claim affiliation with the Wikimedia community, is this a logo that anyone can use for this purpose in any context without permission, just so long as they do not purport to be representing the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects? How does Aff Com feel about thematic organizations and the rest of the Wikimedia community representing themselves graphically with a shared community logo? What is the significance of this community logo being labeled as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation? Is it in any way different from any other trademarked logo? How would Aff Com and the Wikimedia Foundation feel if there were a community organization which did not want to be an official WMF-organization, but did want to represent the Wikimedia community, and did want to use a logo when they promoted themselves? I am thinking of casual meetups, the education program, programs like Wikipedia loves Libraries, and thematic organizations. Can anyone use this Meta-Wiki logo without permission to represent these kinds of Wikimedia projects? Can anyone freely remix this logo for their group without worrying about the anyone wanting oversight of the group for using the trademark? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional thoughts in the naming of thematic organizations and user groups

The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) - for which I have the highest respect and admiration for their important, thorough, and hard work as well as their dedication to our mission - is in the business of receiving applications by new proposed User Groups and Thematic Organizations for possible recommendation to the WMF Board as new movement entities. The enthusiasm of Wikimedians around the world to participate in this process exemplifies the extraordinary levels of commitment and dedication to free knowledge within the Wikimedia movement. Going forward, we know that these movement affiliates will help editors and contributors to engage more effectively and efficiently with each other across Wikimedia projects and languages.

To facilitate the creation of these new entities, WMF Legal anticipates that we will be called upon to proactively advise on the appropriate use of Wikimedia marks by movement affiliates and the risks involved, particularly in the naming process. Although each movement affiliate will be subject to case-by-case review by both AffCom and WMF, we hope it is helpful to explain the various factors that WMF Legal may consider when asked to counsel AffCom or WMF on this matter. We of course welcome advice and other views as well.

In the above previous post, I shared some ideas for criteria in naming Thematic Organizations. Today, I want to elaborate on those proposed criteria as they might apply to thematic organizations and user groups. We would like to suggest that the discussions surrounding the naming process for approval of movement entities should involve not just AffCom, WMF, and new movement entities, but the Wikimedia community as a whole. As I believe all would agree, the goodwill in the Wikimedia “name” and trademarks is created by the work of all our editors and contributors, and any decisions in naming and approving new entities will necessarily affect the wider community. Therefore, to the extent AffCom believes appropriate, we would encourage finding ways in which the community may participate in the conversation with respect to the naming of entities.

As stated in the prior post, any new movement entity’s name in its entirety should first and foremost: avoid confusion; be accurate; not imply exclusivity; and not endanger the goodwill of the Wikimedia brand. First, avoidance of confusion helps to protect affiliates from unjustified, unfounded lawsuits which are intended to target the Foundation. Second, we wish to avoid the impression of exclusivity to prevent the impression that one affiliate has exclusive rights to a certain theme at the expense of other potential affiliates. Third, accuracy and precision in naming also help multiple affiliates to coexist with the least friction, particularly where various affiliates with a similar focus may wish to encompass single vs. multiple projects, and single vs. multiple languages. Fourth, we are all stewards of the goodwill of the Wikimedia brand, and must carefully consider trademark permissions on a case-by-case basis.

Below are some suggested draft considerations for discussion amongst the community. We encourage feedback and comment from the community, AffCom, and others. We emphasize that each movement entity will undergo case-by-case review and these are intended only to provide some direction in minimizing not only the risk to the brand but the cost in time and resources to AffCom.

Draft Considerations:

First Consideration

For Thematic Organizations and User Groups that wish to focus solely on a single project like Wikipedia or Wikisource, the “Wikimedia <name>” model (for example, “Wikimedia <Hats>”) may be problematic. The use of the “Wikimedia” mark for those groups and organizations that only wish to edit Wikipedia or Wikisource risks inaccuracy, confusion, and undue exclusivity.

For instance, two groups may wish to edit two different projects on similar themes (for example, Wikipedia <Hats> as opposed to Wikiversity <Hats>). In addition, Wikimedia hosts projects in a multitude of languages across the world. It is doubtful that any one movement entity will wish to or can actually encompass all languages.

Thus, we encourage more precision rather than less in naming. Single-project entities should consider names such as “Wikisource Editors for <name>”. It may further be useful to indicate the language of origin within the name itself. Thus, “Wikipedia <Hats >in French” would create space for a less confusing coexistence with another group on another language project named “Wikipedia <Hats> in English”.

We note that community members have questioned the reasons for encouraging use of “Wikipedia” over the “Wikimedia” mark. This is largely due to the fact that much of the legal confusion which has led to improper targeting of chapters has centered on the use of the Wikimedia mark, as it is more directly affiliated with the Foundation. Wikipedia on the other hand is perceived as a product-based mark, and thus arguably results in less risk of misguided lawsuits. Nevertheless, the more narrow the appellation, the less likely the confusion - a principle that applies to broad and narrow uses of "Wikipedia" as well.

Second Consideration

For cross-project Thematic Organizations and User Groups, the use of the “Wikimedia” mark creates another set of practical concerns. New groups will likely continually form in the future, and any established naming framework should support rather than constrain the expansion of new movement entities over the years. “Wikimedia <Hats>” for instance could seek to co-exist with an eventual “Wikipedia Club <Hats>”, but these names convey an inaccurate and unjustified impression of greater recognition for one group versus the other. To be sure, User Groups/Thematic Organization and their names may be subject to periodic review, but we wish to avoid a situation where, after a negative conclusion, AffCom is required to take away broader names to describe the more narrow activities of an organization; in our view, it is better to start with a narrow name and step up to a broader appellation when the activities of the organization so justify. Furthermore, the existence of “Wikimedia <Hats>” could preemptively discourage similar user groups with an interest in hats from forming. Finally, as noted, we must ensure that we do not favor English-language projects: a thematic organization called Wikimedia <Hats> creates exclusivity in our movement unless it has the methods available to include all our language projects - which will rarely be the case.

Hence, we encourage creative naming choices for cross-project entities to avoid such potentially inequitable situations. “Friends of <name>”, “Italian supporters of <name>”, “Editors for <name>”, or other creative non-English naming solutions all constitute plausible naming models. In certain situations, “Wikimedians Interested in <name>” or “Wiki Loves <name>” may be appropriate if AffCom determines that the <name> meets the stated criteria. For instance, “Wikimedians Interested in <Hats>” may be too broad, but “Wikimedians Interested in <Fedoras>” may be more appropriate.

We are aware that there has been some debate within the community over the use of “wiki” in our movement naming conventions. However, its usage is well-established in the community with events such as Wikimania and projects such as “Wiki Loves Monuments”, and as long as the usage is sufficiently descriptive it remains a viable naming component.

Third Consideration

Movement entities may link themselves to Wikimedia by employing a subtitle like “An Independent Thematic Organization of the Wikimedia Movement”. Such a subtitle would, for example, allow more room for creative names or use of generic terms like “wiki” while still recognizing the affiliation with the Wikimedia movement.

Fourth Consideration

We would also like to point out that movement organizations should seek trademark permission before registering or doing business under any name employing our trademarks, such as Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Before any such registrations or use of the name, WMF should furnish formal, written permission, since the Foundation is the legal owner of the marks as a steward for the community.

We recognize that AffCom is charting new ground with movement affiliates like Thematic Organizations and User Groups, and we know that everyone wishes to ensure that they choose names that work for the new affiliates as well as the movement as a whole. We are confident that User Groups and Thematic Organizations will be able to devise bold and creative names that meet our values without brand dilution, exclusivity, or confusion.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, thanks a lot for your constructive and positively faced input and thoughts! I do have a few suggestions for your reconsideration though.

First of all, in your first recommendation you speak of groups that wish to edit. As I understand it, in no scenario it should be the purpose of a user group and definitely not of a thematic organization to edit. It might be a purpose to support editors of a certain project or set of projects though. Therefore, I suggest to change 'edit' into 'support editors of'. Just to avoid confusion later on.

Somehow the 'Wiki Loves <Something>' keeps returning as example. I would like to emphasize that Wiki Loves <XYZ> is a concept for a set of projects, and probably not a good name or scope for an organization. I know Wiki Loves Monuments seems like a big thing, but it is after all organized by chapters all over the world and groups that could be recognized as User Groups - but that are generally not solely focused on Wiki Loves Monuments. Just a minor detail - the rest of the recommendation seems comparable with my own views on the topic.

Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point re "groups that wish to edit." And I understand your point re "Wiki Loves XYZ." Thanks! Geoffbrigham (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, thank you for your new recommendations, I think it clarifies a few questions we had.

In particular, the use of the relevant subtitle is a very welcome development.

For the second consideration, about choosing the most non-exclusive name I would add that in practice, we would want to employ a bit of generosity and trust: we would probably not recommend a "Wikimedia <Hats>" without very good reasons, but we would probably – upon careful consideration – recommend a name like "Wikimedia <Hats> Krakozhia" even though it can be conceived that in a future or some futures a second hatter group would want to create an organization in the fictional country of Krakozhia.

This would happen in the general context where AffCom tries to ensure that affiliates are open to volunteers under their scope both in policy and practice and while there is no exclusivity, in the interest of general harmony and the reduction of organizational overheads, we would examine first how the second group of hatters could integrate into the first before recommending separate recognition. So in sum, in examining the exclusivity criteria of a given name-organization combination, I would consider the potentiality of the group to fill the shoes the name implies. Indeed, in the case of thematic organizations we try to include as standard practice an announcement to the Wikimedia-l list of applications in the middle of the process to allow for community input and indeed to see what is the likelihood of Krakhozia's hatters being divided and whose future naming needs might need to be considered in advance.

The thematic organization and user groups models open the field for a huge variety of empowered Wikimedia groups, which will have intersections at various places – I would not imagine hierarchies inherent in naming even if two thorgs would happen to operate on the same theme in the some geographic location. (As noted above, this would only be encouraged if there was a very strong reason the two cannot work together in some form or under some common structure.)

In the case of user groups, which are in general meant to be more fluid in coming into existence and in cases going out of existence, I could imagine agreeing to names like "Wikimedia User Group Grand Fenwick" as a precursor of a future Krakhozian chapter, or "Wikimedia User Group Madripoor" (if the conditions of openness are met, the group is indeed interested in more than one project, and there is no rift in the community that would make this unwise), unless the group in question would suggest more creative names for themselves. –Bence (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My image is that Thematic Organizations will be significant movement entities, at the same level of organization and scale as geographic chapters. To that end, it would not be desirable to have multiple Thematic Orgs sharing a theme. While this does not imply strict exclusivity, it does mean that each org should be able to briefly define a theme within which they provide support for all efforts across the projects, just as chapters are provide support for all efforts within a geography. So most considerations that apply to one type of entity would apply to the other.

For the first Consideration: This makes a great deal of sense for user groups. We may want to encourage thematic orgs to take on a broader scope than this. For instance, Wikivoyage already has a global, multilingual entity supporting its existence; they do aim to represent and support all languages. <br\>

For the second Consideration: this seems to expect a large number of fragmented Thematic Orgs. I would expect, in contrast, a relatively small number of broad Thematic Orgs, which are each dedicated to topics of major global significance, across many cultures and eras and many modern sources/repositoies of knowledge. So there would be no thematic orgs focused on hats at all (as too narrow a subject area). However a wide variety of hat- and suit- and accessory-themed user groups might interact with a thematic org focused on Clothing. –SJ talk  01:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Our expectation is that Wiki Med will be global in scope. We already have interest from more than 13 countries and one of our projects in currently working on medical content in more than 30 languages (with the hope of expanding to 80). The issue with national chapters is just that, they are national, which is why they are not ideal for international collaborations around subject matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Practically speaking, these models of affiliation are demand-based. In other words, it is hard to predict in advance whether narrower categories, such as hats or suits or accessories would want to affiliate (following Bence and SJ's usage of these terms) or the broader category of clothing would want to affiliate. Or where these potential affiliates are based and how widely they see their scope of operation, geographically, linguistically and project-wise. For example, what about Global Hats or Hats in Africa? I think we have to keep the field wide open for any viable group that wants to affiliate to do so - in other words, we may end up with hats, shoes, accessories and clothing. Not to mention socks. :) As long as the naming conventions and criteria are precise enough to avoid confusion and brand dilution, I do not see this multiplicity as an inherent problem. Seen another way, fragmentation is also diversity. I would imagine that some thematic organizations can also be regional in scope (eg South Asia, Africa etc) or linking different geographies via themes.Bishdatta (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki Thematic Organizations

Looks like they'll follow a special process.[2] --Nemo 15:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)