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
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Quarterly/Committee

2) With respect to COI work. There was support to set up a group of
functionaries to take on some of this work on EN WP. The big push for this
is to allow concerns regarding off WP evidence to be mostly dealt with
privately to balance our support of the right to anonymity for good faith
editors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Milieu_3

Additionally legal already does a fair bit of COI follow up but is fairly
quiet about the work they do. So we do have some paid staff on this right
now.

By the way neither of these comments are in opposition to third party
indepedent funding to support more work in these topic areas :-)

Best
James

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 from paid human resources
> for community work are
>
> (1) the *Signpost*, which seems to me like it requires enough skilled work
> to produce on a weekly
> basis that its staff should be paid in a manner similar to the staff of US
> college weekly newspapers. (For a time I was a regular *Signpost*
> contributor, but no longer. I know how much work was involved in doing a
> good job with creating and publishing the *Signpost* weekly.)
>
> and
>
> (2) conflict of interest work, in three domains: (a) education of COI
> editors, particularly those who express interest in abiding by community
> norms and policies; (b) reviews of changes that have been made or proposed
> in a manner consistent with the spirit of community norms of policies; and
> (c) investigations of potential COI problems such as undisclosed paid
> editing.
>
> Perhaps there are other areas which would also benefit from additional paid
> human resources, but which WMF can't, won't, or shouldn't fund.
>
> Let me repeat the questions that I asked at the top of this email. (1) How
> would people feel about non-WMF funding for these kinds kind of work, if
> funding can be found? (2) If funding for these kinds of work would be
> beneficial, how might the funding be possible to obtain it without WMF
> involvement?
>
> A third question which will need some thought, if there aren't a lot of
> objections to the concept and if funding can be found, is "who should
> administer the funding?" WMF shouldn't, and my initial thought is that
> setting up a new 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization would be a good way to
> go. I suggest waiting to think about this question for the moment, and
> first focusing on the two other questions.
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to