Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

A paid position to take care of the coordination of the publication might help. If such a position was not involved in content I would see less issue with the funds for it coming from a movement grant. Translation of more from the German Kurier could also be another good source of content. And

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

During my time at the *Signpost*, there were large fluctuations in the supply of people who had the time, willingness, and skills to write regular features for the *Signpost* and work on the publication process. As far as I know, the labor supply is still the biggest problem. The discussion on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

Well, before we talk about funding the Signpost through the WMF or through a non-WMF source, lets ask if that is what the folks who actually work on the Signpost would like? There's a pretty big assumption here that the writers there would like to be paid in the manner of a college newspaper,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

Le 07/05/2017 à 20:24, Pine W a écrit : Hi folks, I'd like to ask for your thoughts about (1) whether it would be a good idea, and if so (2) how, to get non-WMF funding sources for community work which WMF can't, won't, or shouldn't fund, and could benefit from paid human resources. Two areas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

I do not think that WMF funding would be the best solution for the Signpost, as it would raise questions about their journalism independence and integrity. There are many other options to explore, though, like grants from Knight Foundation and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

A distinction that I see between funding the WMF blog from funding the *Signpost *is that the former is WMF corporate communications and the latter is community journalism. It would be difficult to maintain journalistic integrity and independence at the *Signpost *if its staff feel like their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

My point was more that these are ethically movement funds rather than WMF funds. Yes I realize that legally the matter differs. The Signpost produces reviews of issues of interest to Wikimedias rather than forward facing content for our readers. I do not see it as different than funding the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

I don't think that WMF project grants would be a suitable funding source for *Signpost *work, for multiple reasons. I consider the *Signpost *to be "content", and WMF shouldn't fund content if it wants to maintain its immunity to lawsuits regarding user-contributed content. Also, there would be a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

1) We do have decent funding mechanisms within the Wikimedia movement. Why could the Signpost not be funded by a movement grant? One would just want the oversight to be from a community run entity rather than from the WMF. Here are the members of the project grants committee

[Wikimedia-l] Non-WMF funding sources for community work

Hi folks, I'd like to ask for your thoughts about (1) whether it would be a good idea, and if so (2) how, to get non-WMF funding sources for community work which WMF can't, won't, or shouldn't fund, and could benefit from paid human resources. Two areas that I have in mind that could benefit