Wow - that's one damn long sentence! :-)

I agree entirely - this is what I was getting at with the idea of the "backstage tour". An organisation shows members of WM-Au around some part of its facilities that are not normally accessible and we then donate some time to improving their article (and teaching them how to improve articles on the topic that that organisation knows about). This would be a really tangible benefit of WM-Au membership.

To respond to Andrew Garrett's concern "Money and articles don't mix" - this does not mean "give us money and we will improve your article". Rather, those organisations that are interested in working with us (whether they are donors *or not*) can share their expertise and we share our expertise back - a win win. It is just more than likely that the organisation that wants to be a member is the same kind of organisation that wants to give us a backstage tour.

Under no circumstances would it be a situation where they pay to have access to our editing abilities/time.

-Liam

On 13/11/2008, at 10:05 PM, Confusing Manifestation wrote:

I'd also like to see some kind of system where organisations (not
necessarily donors) could help us improve their articles - as long as
it's made abundantly clear to them at the start that the aim is to get
a well-sourced, neutral article rather than a promotional puff piece,
it would still often be in their interests to help since it would
result in an article that at the very least won't be an attack page,
and by keeping everything out in the open at least means that there
will be constant scrutiny (rather than the standard pattern of someone
editing, and someone else identifying them as having a conflict of
interest, and the media exploding into a frenzy of "X edited an
article on Y, shame on X!").

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to