Talk:Wiki Project Med

Archives of this page

---

2011|2012|2013

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Note: this is not the place to suggest changes to Wikipedia itself. If you have concerns or questions regarding medical content please post them on the talk page of the WikiProject Medicine in the appropriate language. English is here

Membership

Membership fees (continued)

As I think about the complexity of membership fees and the difficulty of sending money from all over the world in different currencies I am thinking we should just have open membership. Ie free membership with all one having to do is express interest and send some details. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How will you fund the organization's basic overhead expenses, like E&O insurance for the board members? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

James, it would be fairly easy to associate a Paypal account with wikiprojectmedgmail.com Would that alleviate some of the hurdle, or is it not sufficiently open/global enough of a solution? Ocaasi (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to keep the barrier to entry low. We where talking about charging different membership rates based on where people are in the world and what people do. That sounds a little complicated. Do not really consider E&O insurance necessary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The organisation will need an income stream. It would be great for diversity if we could do without fees, though. Perhaps grants and donations will cover all our needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am just wondering if the $600 from collecting fees from 60 people is really worth it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well... it might be. Or it might be worth collecting dues but making it optional for people outside the developed world and/or anyone who requests a waiver. If you offer waivers, then you could raise the dues to US $20 or even $50 a year for those who can afford it.

Back in 1995, I heard that one organization calculated the cost of having (thousands of) members (money handling, issuing receipts, sending out renewal reminders, mailing ballots for elections, etc., and all done by fairly well-paid staff members on paper) was about $40 per member per year. I'm sure that costs have declined since then, but you might consider setting the dues a bit higher than $10 a head. Even $20 and making it a two-year membership might reduce some of your overhead costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we begin offering official membership soon. We could initially offer it for free. We do not yet have the processes in place to collect funds. When we do we could than reconsider this position. Could be an extra incentive for people to sign up early :-)

Next we need to determine what is required for membership. We of course will be open to all people from all countries. I think it is reasonable to require a Wikipedia / Wikimedia account especially since most interactions will take place on wiki. Other requirements? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Members should acknowledge a commitment to our mission, per our bylaws. Not sure what else. Do we want active participation in a Wikipedia medicine project? We should also consider under what circumstances and how we will expel a member. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I image keeping this information on google docs. We would need name, country, address, email, phone number, WP user name.

Should we have a minimum number of edits as a criteria say 100? If we are a group who is interested in teaching others how to use Wikipedia and improve medical content we will need to have members with some experience with it. We could also look at two classes of members. I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a system with two classes of members - initiates/supporters and full members. Anyone can sign up as a supporter but to be a full member the person has to do something more.

The United States and Canada Education program is developing a certification program. Any volunteer can instantly join and get affiliation with the program, but to be certified, they will have to do some useful project and get reviewed. At that point, the person gets certified and their name goes on a list, and the program will provide a reference for the person on request. The target audience for the program is students who want a reference for doing volunteer work. This is a tiered membership system similar to what I think is best for this organization.

I think that getting and tracking participation out of members is more important than getting funding from them. If members actually volunteer for the project and will write their own reports saying what they did, then those reports can be used as supporting documentation if this project ever applies for funding from a foundation or government. I think that at least we should join in conversation with the education program about their certification model and also have talks with other chapters about membership models. Here are some of the membership models we could consider:

1. Anyone can sign up and have full benefits
2. Members pay a fee
3. Members are checked by past wiki activity
4. Members get full benefits after doing activity as a Wiki Project Med participant

Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I really like the idea of two classes of membership were one becomes an initial member by signing up and a full member by becoming involved. Much more important IMO than collecting fees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of merit criteria for membership. "Membership" as it is used in our bylaws carries the right to vote for the board and on motions at general meetings. I would prefer that right to be reserved for participants who have met certain merit criteria. Participants who have not yet met those criteria could be described as associates, friends, affilliates, etc. but, given the present wording of our bylaws, we should apply "member" only to those with voting rights.

The bylaws also define membership, at least in part, by payment of dues. If we decide to base membership on merit criteria and waive fees, we will need to adjust the wording there, but I think we can do that easily enough by board resolution.

Depending on where this discussion goes, we may want to consider appointing a memberships committee, to review and make recommendations or approve applications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Merit based membership will keep people active. And activity IMO is more important than raising funds.

We need to define what is needed to become a member. When one first signs up they will be an "associate" but will only get voting rights when they become a member.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts: My one overriding concern is that members are committed to spreading science-/evidence-based information. If an applicant has demonstrated a committment to that either on-wiki or elsewhere, I'm very happy to welcome them. What I don't want to see, further down the road, is an attempt by Christian Science, homeopathy or any other magical thinking to dilute the reliability of Wikimedia content from within this organisation. I can't imagine such a push succeeding, but I can clearly envision such a push wasting a great deal of valuable time.

I'd support a liberal and inclusive board-appointed committee, with the power to grant membership to applicants who declare a committment to our mission (and whose past behaviour doesn't belie such a committment), and the power to rescind membership from those who subsequently demonstrate a disregard for our mission; or a more restrictive criterion, requiring demonstrated prior activity supporting our mission. I don't think that necessarily has to be wiki-related activity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you care about getting official WMF recognition, then you might want to consult with them about what their preferences are. They might not care, or they might be unhappy with a system that doesn't accept all comers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've alerted Bence to this thread.

For context, our bylaws state that "membership will be open to all persons over the age of twelve and who support the mission of the Corporation. The members and the Board of Directors of the Corporation may establish such other criteria for membership, including a schedule of dues, as they deem appropriate." The mission is "to make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all people in the language of their choice." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about this discussion. As far as I know, there are a number of chapters that make a distinction between "active members" who are usually Wikimedians and "supporting members" who simply support the cause. Personally I would try to keep the system simple and open, thus I would probably not set up committees to look into the wiki histories of members (after all, some people are more interested in editing, while others can be great contributors without doing any editing) or define different membership classes.

The specific context of a thorg that wants to specifically "limit" itself to evidence based medical science might seem to necessitate further controls on membership, but I am not sure (although it is possible) if the fears would materialize or that tight membership controls are the best way to mitigate them. For example, you could include the definition in the bylaws to signal to everyone where the scope ends, or you could create a resolution, FAQ or explanatory document that clearly delineates what kind of science you are or aren't interested in and what is your relationship and control over Wikipedia.

(The above is my personal opinion;I've alerted others in AffCom to follow this discussion, as well.) –Bence (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sold. You're right. I was over-reacting. Do we need to discuss how and under what circumstances to expel members? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding another personal opinion: Multiple types of members is generally a good way of approaching things. However, when we talk about membership dues, in most of the chapters I talked with the primary reason for having them is not the money raised with it, but rather to have some kind of hurdle in place to proof commitment. For example, I guess it is clear that a chapter like WIkimedia UK doesn't really need the membership dues as a funding part (the maintenance of membership are definitely higher). However, membership dues is usually an effective method to select the somewhat dedicated members and active members.

However, your complexity is your international scope. 10 dollar in the US has a different value than in Botswana or even India. In an ideal world, you might consider different heights of membership dues depending on the country - but at the same time the simplicity is also very valuable... So basically there is no easy answer. But I do ~personally believe that some kind of threshold on membership is necessary for a healthy association; although if you really strongly believe that another solution is better, I doubt that would be a dealbreaker with AffCom. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

However being an active medical editor is a threshold in and off itself and a more important / equitable one at that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

bence just told me that i should put a word here. i'd support the "no/low membership fee model" for the following reasons: (1) a member is known personally, and can be contacted. (2) therefor it is easier to involve a member in some project (3) low fees allow people with less money but more time to participate easy without "begging for less fee because of poorness", (4) if one gets too many dead members some "edit count" or "code contribution count" can be introduced - in a couple of years time (like some global contribution limit for all votes, easy to to check like the german right to vote e.g.) --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, ThurnerRupert. We've just had a Skype board meeting and decided that for now membership will be free to anyone who agrees with our mission. I'll post a draft membership policy at Wiki Project Med/Membership policy. Your suggestion regarding the German right to vote was discussed but we decided to leave membership open, for now, to people who are not active Wikimedians - such as members of partner organisations, professional medical associations, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Classes of membership

I am thinking we should have a couple of classes of membership. I think a certain amount of involvement should be required before one can become a voting member. How about 100 edits and an account more than 3 months old? We could also have a non voting class for people who support the efforts but do not get involved or who are inactive. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a top tier to encourage participation, a middle tier for voting members, and an honorary tier for everyone else:

• Gold: voting members for those who have a 3 month/100 edit Wikimedia account AND have hosted an event, contacted an organization, made some policy contribution, or donated to WPMEDF. Will receive the newsletter, notifications about votes, and updates on Board discussions perhaps. We might also consider giving these editors some perk or bonus to celebrate their active involvement. It could be a token gift like Wikipedia stickers or WPMEDF business cards, or a pen with our logo on it. That would require physical addresses, but it would be optional of course.
• Silver: voting members members for 3/month 100 edit members; will receive the newsletter and notifications about votes.
• Honorary: non voting members who want to receive updates but don't want to vote or don't participate on Wikipedia, or for non-Wikimedians. Will receive the newsletter.

All membership is free. We can of course change the language on gold/silver language to be less haughty. What do you think? Ocaasi (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think for equity reasons all membership should be free. I don't know about those classes of member, though. I'd like people with a commitment to our mission - but who aren't editors - to have equal influence here. I see us as a bridge between the various WikiProject Medicines and other quite disparate organisations, and think that people on both sides of that bridge should have the opportunity to exercise influence here (provided, of course, the mission of their organisation doesn't conflict in any serious way with ours). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Collecting information

First thought: I think we need to respect privacy here foremost. My idea is that we should collect Full Name, optional Wikimedia username, a contact email address, and City/Country of Origin, but nothing else. That information should never be shared outside the Board. It should be kept by the Membership Secretary and never shared with any third party without explicit opt-in permission. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(a) Some members wish to remain anonymous online. (b) But I think those who vote on board membership and other important issues should be identified individuals. If we don't accommodate the first point, we'll miss out on the input and participation at the highest level of some of our strongest contributors. If we fail to accommodate the latter, we leave ourselves open to being gamed.

I'm not sure of the best way forward. Still thinking. But it looks like the simplest solution would be that those who want to remain anonymous online must confirm their identity to one board member who maintains a secure list of identified anonymous members. I realise this will still exclude those anonymous users who are unwilling to identify themselves to that board member (and his/her successors), but can't, at present think of a way around that, that fully satisfies (a) and (b).

Because of (b), I think we have to insist on confirmed identity, and to me that means us posting a letter with membership number to a street address and receiving a letter or email confirmation.

Because voting membership is contingent on the member sharing our mission, we need to know our members' wikimedia project user name, so that problematical on-project behaviour may lead to their expulsion from this company.

Perhaps we could have "voting (identified) members" and "associates". Associate members get all the notifications that voting members get, and are welcome to participate as much or as little as they wish.

Still thinking and open to persuasion. I just realised I promised to post a proposed membership policy for discussion. Sorry. But we probably need to agree on the above principles before there would be any point in that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO more info should be collected for voting members. I am happy to have little to no info from non voting members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What info you collect is up to you of course. However, I do suggest (if this wasn't the plan yet) to write at some point before implementing this, a privacy policy that outlines how you will handle the information. Because of course there will always be situations where you have to share this information (if only because of a court order) and it would be fair, especially for an international membership, to make expectations clear. I also guess there are specific reasons why you want to know 'more' about these people - probably because you want to be able to act upon it if it raises red flags. Perhaps this is also something to include. Effeietsanders (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes certainly this will need to be done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

CoI

I'd like voting members to declare any potential conflicts of interest: ie., membership of organisations related to health or online information distribution, and whether they've received income or benefit from such organisations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Summing up

• no fees/dues
• members must supply
  • real name and address (confirmed, by the memberships officer posting their membership number to that address and them returning the number)
  • email address
  • Skype/phone contact
  • Wikimedia project user name
  • written commitment to this corporation's mission by ticking a box on the application form
  • declaration of potential conflicts of interest including membership of or remuneration from another organisation in the fields of health or online data dissemination - when applying for membership or when such potential conflicts of interest arise on the application form: "List any organisations in the fields of health or online information distribution from whom you receive money or other tangible benefits."
• applicants for membership need to demonstrate prior constructive contributions to Wikimedia medicine content or outreach, or constructive involvement with an organisation or activity that aligns with this corporation's aims
• voting members may participate using only their Wikimedia project user name if they wish but they must supply their real name and address to the memberships secretary in the application form
• the memberships secretary keeps the list of members with their addresses and linked Wikimedia project user names in a secure offline file
• the memberships secretary will offer an opinion to the board regarding the fitness of an anonymous applicant but may not disclose the real name or address of the applicant
• applicants apply by completing an online application form to the memberships secretary; membership must be approved by a majority of board members and is rescinded when the member loses the confidence of a majority of board members
• associates get the newsletter if they wish and are entitled to participate fully in all the activities of the organisation except for voting and board membership

Anything else? Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If your goal is to have the fewest possible voting members outside the board, then I think you've hit on an excellent plan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest some changes? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with name, email, user name. Address and skype / phone would be optional. Would be happy to use some mechanistic method based on recent edit counts to determine if someone gets voting/active status or honorary membership. We could also have a pre set written commitment that people just need to click on in the google doc application. I do not think requiring a signature should be needed at this point. Here is the Wikivoyage membership application [1]. I assumed details would be automatically added to a google document once a person has filled out the online google application form. We should keep things a little more simple :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of address was to protect against one individual having lots of memberships and so lots of votes (asking for Skype/phone details too would enhance that protection). Email alone provides no security in that regard. If everybody thinks email is enough, I'm more than happy to go along. I had to provide my address to sign up with the International Association for the Study of Pain. WMDE, WMUK, WMAU and Sweden have "address" as a mandatory field on their application forms.

I agree, an online application form is good, and as automated as possible is good. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support simple, automatic-wherever-possible, private as we can, encouraging, and even fun facilitation of participants' involvement. Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've struck through a few things.

• Should real name, address, Skype/phone, and Wikimedia user name all be mandatory for voting members? Some? None?
• How do we determine merit? Do we want voting members who are active in partner organisations (WHO, NIH, etc,) but not active on Wikimedia projects?
• Is the COI question appropriate?
• Should all, some, none of this information be publicly available, available only to the board, available only to the memberships secretary?

I'm thinking phone/Skype, address, and the association between real name and user name, at the very least, shouldn't be automatically publicly available. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All of it should only be seen by the board IMO. We want people who are active in partner organizations to become active in Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the COI thing is. Your health insurance company is "an organisation in the field of health...from whom you receive money" (indirectly). Your local hospital is "an organisation in the field of health...from whom you receive other tangible benefits" (i.e., medical care). But a lone homeopath or a pack of Scientologists doesn't count as having connections to "any organisation in the field of health".

Why are you worrying about this? Members aren't on the Board. They do not make the actual, legal decisions about which contracts the Board enters into. You're setting the bar far higher than most political parties. I can register to vote for real elections without supplying this much information. Major organizations like the APA don't ask for this. Why are you? What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When we first presented the idea of the medical thematic chapter some of the German Wikipedians raised concerns that this organization could be taken over by those with COI to promote no Wikipedia aligned goals. I guess this is to address that concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

How does mere collection of this unverifiable information prevent another group from taking over? Are you going to refuse membership to Scientologists (religious discrimination may not be legal) or to potential supporters if too many of them come from the same group, e.g., a hundred employees of the same company signed up after attending a presentation you made to them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the same concern. I think that membership should not be automated, but rather upon acceptance by the board. I think that the board should freely welcome members but so long as the process is approved by a human, there will never be any gaming wherein a large number of people suddenly gain membership and change the organization's direction. It is radical enough just to have an open application process without having a radical process for giving voting rights over organizational finances. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We will refuse membership to those that we as a board do not feel share the goals of the organization. You are right though that the information is unverifiable. Maybe it should only be board members that are required to give COI info. Other members will be judged on their on Wiki contributions as those are verifiable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised membership policy

Wiki Project Med Foundation aims to lead a robust, global coalition of engaged and active participants.

• There are no membership fees or dues for joining WPMEDF. (Donations are welcome but confer no special privileges).
• There are two groups of members: voting members, and associate members (non-voting)

Voting members

Will apply by giving their:

• Real name
• Physical address
• Contact email address
• Wikimedia project username
• Skype or phone contact (optional)
  • All information except for Wikimedia usernames will be kept private and confidential among the WPMEDF Board and will never be shared with an outside organization or with non-Board members
• Commit to advancing WPMEDF's mission (by ticking a box on the application form)
• Disclose potential conflicts of interest on the application form (by listing organisations in the fields of health or online information distribution from which they receive money or other tangible benefits).
• Have an active Wikimedia account that is at least 3 months old Wikimedia with 100 global edits; OR alternatively demonstrate contributions to Wikimedia medical content, outreach, or constructive involvement with an organisation or activity that aligns with WPMEDF's aims
• Participate using their Wikimedia project username
• Receive the newsletter (unless they opt-out)
• Be eligible to receive public acknowledgement of their contributions and virtual or token gifts of appreciation from the Board

Associate members

• Should register a Wikimedia account and provide their username
• Are welcome and encouraged to participate fully in all the activities of the organisation except for voting and Board membership
• Will receive the newsletter (unless they opt-out)
• Are eligible to receive public acknowledgement of their contributions and virtual or token gifts of appreciation from the Board

Discussion

• Support I think this provides a reasonable balance between competing interests. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like more discussion is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Agree this reflects the various concerns and manages to be both inviting and functional. Ocaasi, 20:56, 11 May 2013
• Support. It looks very good. Congratulations. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Anthony invited me to take a look at the policy - it looks sensible to me. One thing I notice that for full members who are not Wikimedians, participating with their Wikimedia username might be a problem (unless of course they are encouraged to register a username on Meta or the Wiki Med website if there will be one); and what is perhaps not entirely clear is how the associate membership works (as I understand, it would be for people who have not made enough contributions on wiki and want to keep up with the developments of Wiki Med and support the org; but what (info/action) is needed to become an associate member and who should choose that over full membership?). –Bence (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  People who don't want to vote or who have no relevant background but just want to follow along would be associate members. They'll be updated with less information and be more spectators. They also don't have to provide as much (or any) personal information. Ocaasi (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • People who are not yet Wikipedians will still need a username as this the primary method with which we communicate. Associate members are for people who want to support the goals but 1) do not have time to get seriously involved 2) want to support the goals and get involved but wish to maintain greater anonymity 3) want to be involved in an advisory role (say people with a great deal of experience in other domains). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

    I've added a 'register account' and 'provide username' point to the policy. Ocaasi (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Although I wouldn't want the private information being visible any wider than is needed. If the membership secretary has confirmed that that User:XYZ is a real person and apparently meets our criteria, then the rest of the Board doesn't need to know their real name, address, etc. We should attempt to respect the privacy of anyone who wishes to maintain anonymity of editing as broadly as possible. I would also prefer to be encouraged to declare my potential conflict of loyalties as well as interests, e.g. as a Trustee of a related charity to which I owe certain absolute duties, even though I receive no monetary compensation or tangible benefit from it. All of these are details, of course, and can be looked at in the light of experience as we grow. --RexxS (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I can add that real names and addresses will be kept confidentially by the Membership Secretary and only shared with other Board members is necessary.
• Comment I do not want to rearrange content during a vote but I think that the presentation should be changed here. Right now the sections are "voting members" and "associate members". I think this should be changed to "All members" and "voting members", so that voting members do all things and the differences between the group is more clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Do you want to make a draft of what you propose below? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi fixed this to my satisfaction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the same application form for voting members should be used for non-voting participants so that people are not asked to complete another form if they start as non-voting and then become voting members. If this happens, then the items listed under "voting members" would actually be requested from all participants, even if they are only required for voting members. I see nothing wrong with asking about COI and contact info from all classes of participants so long as the privacy policy is clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Some things listed here, like receiving acknowledgement or a newsletter, should not be restricted from persons who are not participating in the project. I think of the "exception that proves the rule" - saying that people have to be registered to receive acknowledgement makes it seem like that is a route to favor or to join conversations through the newsletter, which is not something which I think is best to encourage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree the board should be able to handout acknowledgement to whomever they wish who they feel has made a positive contribution to our goals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that non-members couldn't receive acknowledgement, I just want to plant the seed in members minds that they might be acknowledged. It's an inclusionary piece not an exclusionary piece. Ocaasi (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This process talks about application, but I think it should be introduced by saying that applications can be refused for any reason and without explanation. The right to vote should be withheld from anyone who is not approved by a membership council. Until a membership council exists all voting members should be given the right to vote by the board. It is harmful to give the right to vote to people who can join through a process which is never overseen by a human. People who vote are people who control every asset the organization has. It is unreasonable to turn finances over to anyone who shows up on the Internet. The organization can remain very welcoming while still retaining final approval over who is a voting member rather than making it an entirely open process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay so should members simply be approved by the membership secretary who only brings concerns to the board? A human will need to verify that a person has an account that is more than 3 months old and has made more than 100 edits in the last year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We should be clear that membership would only be refused in a potential member poses an obvious threat to the functioning or mission of WPMEDF. We want people to apply and participate and should only exclude members in rare cases. Ocaasi (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We want people to apply and participate and should only exclude members in rare cases but I see no reason to restrain the organization with a perpetual promise that all people are accepted without thought. What James said is what I think is best - members are approved by a membership secretary who can bring concerns to the board, and if that was the rule then I would support this. Some concern may arise in the future and I think it is best to keep a human element in this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Second revised membership policy

Wiki Project Med Foundation aims to lead a robust, global coalition of engaged and active participants.

• There are no membership fees or dues for joining WPMEDF. (Donations are welcome but confer no special privileges).
• Membership is open to all Wikimedia community members in good standing and any other people interested in our mission--but may be withdrawn at the discretion of the WPMEDF Board

All members

• Should register a Wikimedia account and provide their username
• Commit to supporting WPMEDF's mission (by ticking a box on the application form)
• Are welcome and encouraged to participate fully in discussions and programs
• Will receive the newsletter (unless they opt-out)
• May receive public acknowledgement of their contributions and virtual or token gifts of appreciation from the Board (as can non-members)
• Are encouraged to disclose potential conflicts of loyalty or interest
• Will not have a history of poor conduct which may reasonably be expected to have a negative impact on WPMEDF's functioning or mission

Voting members

• May vote on motions at general meetings and may be elected to the Board
• Will provide their:
  • Wikimedia project username (public)
  • General location - town, region, or country (public)
  • Real name (private)
  • Email address (private)
  • Skype or phone contact (optional, and private)
  • Education background, area of expertise (optional, and private)
  • Demographic info (optional, and private unless anonymized and aggregated)
• Have an active Wikimedia account that is at least 3 months old with 100 global yearly edits or other significant contributions to Wikimedia medical content or outreach, OR constructive involvement with an organisation or activity that aligns with WPMEDF's aims

Associate members (non-voting)

• May participate fully except for Board membership and voting on motions at general meetings

Privacy

Members' Wikimedia usernames and general location (country, region or town) will be public. Other private information (real names, full addresses if optionally given, email addresses, contact numbers) will be collected and stored by the Membership Secretary. This information will never be shared with an outside organization or with non-Board members, without explicit permission from each individual member: this information will only be shared with other members of the WPMEDF Board, and only if necessary for WPMEDF communications that advance our ongoing projects and mission.

Discussion/voting

• Comment "All information except for Wikimedia usernames will be kept private and confidential" is a difficult promise to keep. Will there ever be public voting on any issue? What about public discussion? Can there be counting of votes by any third party? What about auditing of the membership roster by funders or sponsors? Might this organization publish deidentified research on member demographics? If this organization provides a public forum for member discussion, might that mislead anyone into thinking that they are protected by the "private and confidential" promise within that forum? Is the membership secretary the only person with access to the email list? Which countries' court orders for information does this organization respect? I think it is best not to make a promise at all, but rather to state a general intent to protect privacy. This policy could even be posted in wiki-format to let anyone change it if they do not like it. I think it is best as a soft rule because it is difficult to make a hard rule. I think it should be soft before accepting members, because changing membership policy is like changing any agreement and people need fair notice in case of changes to a solid promise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be difficult to keep if the Membership Secretary's account was compromised, for example. Maybe we could add a softening phrase like "WMMEDF is committed to keeping..." to account for the possibility of hacking? To address some of your questions, I'd guess voting would likely be done here, on the talk page. I'd say discussion would nearly always be welcome (unless there was a consensus someone was trolling, etc.) It seems auditing would contradict our commitment to member privacy, as would deidentified research. I see a distinction between keeping private info private and discussing WPMEDF activity. It seems clear the Membership Secretary would have the only general access. I defer to legal. ;-) Hmmmm... membership policy in a wiki-format. Isn't that akin to keeping the bylaws in a wiki-format? It seems problematic. Biosthmors (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By-laws are registered with the government of a country and a government office must be notified each time they are changed. Any other rules can be changed as the board likes and are not registered with the government. This is true internationally. The by-laws say some things about membership but this membership policy is much more defined. Keeping them in wiki-format is radical but not nearly as radical as having an organization which gives anyone on the Internet a vote on the organization's finances. I need to think more about the other stuff. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks to all involved in helping this develop. I have a nitpick. Can we change the wording of "Can vote in all WPMEDF decision and Board elections" to something like "Can vote in all Board elections and decisions put up for a vote". Is that what we mean? Does the board decide when things are put up for a membership vote? Biosthmors (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've also rearranged things a bit per Blue Rasberry's suggestion above, added "conflict of loyalty" per RexxS.

Biosthmors, once the bylaws and policies have bedded down, I think we should protect those pages.

I suggest the memberships secretary keeps real name, postal address, email and phone/Skype in an offline file and never discloses these to anyone, not even other board members, unless there's a court order. I can see no reason to act otherwise. If members choose to disclose these details to one another, that's up to them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad idea about putting this burden all on the membership secretary - see what I wrote above. This means that the membership secretary is the only person/group with authority to send email directly or be an admin on a mailing list. If anyone wants to send email to people in a certain country, for example, the membership secretary will have the burden of doing research to find those people. It is not good to make highly qualified promises. I propose that WPMF should keep its standards at the levels of typical non-profit organizations. Anyone on the board or appointed by the board should have access to this list. A good promise would be transparency and disclosure of list use, and not a promise of non-use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added "Memberships are granted and withdrawn at the discretion of the WPMEDF Board". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the privacy policy to emphasize that we're storing information securely but also using it to function and communicate. Check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I am satisfied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question. Do we really need to collect postal addresses? Wouldn't it be sufficient to just know the city/state/country of origin? What are we going to do with addresses besides send gifts, which we could ask for individually when necessary... I raise this point because I'm concerned people may be discouraged from participating if they have to give that explicit location info. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think that anyone serving on the board should be asked to give their physical mailing address. I do not expect that this organization will need to send mail to individuals in any countries except rarely and for specific purposes. If mail is to be sent then addresses can be requested at that time. Otherwise asking for this information could deter people from participating. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Do you think Board member addresses should be public? or Just shared among the Board? Ocaasi (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  In some places I think the law is that officers of an organization must share their addresses publicly. It seems not to be the case in New York - I just checked. If the government does not require it - and I think that it does not - then I take back my assertion that the organization should ask for it. No addresses need to be routinely collected, not even for board members. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  The point of postal addresses was so that I could send the applicant a letter with their membership number, and they could email me their membership number, to - to some degree - protect us from sock-puppet voting members. It's more work for me, but I don't mind doing it. If the consensus is that we accept applicants who have an account with a hundred relevant edits and a project account in good standing, I'm OK with that.

• I'm also quite flexible on what information we disclose to whom, but whatever that is, it does need to be clear, transparent, and enjoy the support of most/all of us involved in this discussion. I'd especially like to hear WhataamIdoing's last word before we sign off on this policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the concern to prevent sock-puppets. Maybe members could get a little icon next to their name if they have established their real-life identity confidentially (or openly) to the membership secretary? Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is better, I think. I've only got a minute, but here are two comments:
  1. Why do you want to make the city of origin public? That pretty much amounts to "medical people in small towns may not edit anonymously". "I'm a doctor, and I live in <little town with only one doctor>" adds up to "you might as well be editing under your real name". Why not say something about "location", and leave it up to people whether they want to be listed by city, region, state/province, or country?
  2. The IRS requires all board members to disclose a valid address on the Form 990s. It is very common to "accidentally" list a business address, attorney's address, or just a city/state rather than a full home address. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I've replaced "city" with "General location - town, region, or country (public)" --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Address and email

So, as it stands, we're not demanding a postal address of voting members, and the real name, email address, optional postal address if supplied, and Skype/phone details are not disclosed to anyone but other board members or as the law in New York or USA require. Is it time for a vote? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hosting the membership application form

Once the policy is agreed, we'll need to host an application form somewhere. James mentioned linking to a Google form. Is that our best solution? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think google form is a great option. Anthony, we have wikiprojectmedgmail.com, which you can access; however, for privacy you might want to use your own gmail account, or one you create for the purpose, such as wpmedfmembersgmail.com Ocaasi (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing participation

WRT 3 months and 100 edits would be good to see ongoing edits aswell. As we are not requiring member fees we need a method to verify that people are still interested. Maybe every year a stipulation of ongoing interested and 100 edits to a Wikimedia project or involvement in the organization? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of this. I imagine someone might receive an email encouraging them to make edits to "pay their dues" lest they be taken off the membership list. It sounds reasonable to me. Biosthmors (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They will still be members just non voting members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading things too fast, we don't have a mechanism to remove inactive members. Taken to the extreme, people decease and we need a way to keep things updated. Maybe we could add that if someone has no Wikimedia activity for 1 year and no active contributions with the organization they will receive an email (we could make a default one and post it on-wiki) thanking them for their contributions but politiely explaining that their membership might soon expire. I wonder if there is an automated way to keep track of a members list by order of their last Wikimedia contribution... Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

VOTE!

• Support Much care has been taken to get this membership policy right. I think it's ready. I support it. Ocaasi (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am not a board member so my vote is not counted as such, but as an interested community participant who would like to be a member of this organization, I support the adoption of this membership policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It seems good, and we can always improve upon it later, if need be. Biosthmors (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Bearing in mind this is something we can modify later in the light of experience. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support after adding "yearly" bit to edit numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Our COI guideline

WMF Legal has made two recommendations regarding COI:

• http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/19/movement-governance-recommendations/
• http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

I think our goal in the next two weeks should be to adopt or formalize our own COI guideline which would apply to board members at the least, and areas of concern. The goal is to reduce or eliminate the appearance of improprietary by not forming relationships where people's personal, professional, or financial relationships are in conflict with their roles as WPMEDF members.

This should include process for:

• Disclosing conflicts of interest where they are even suspected
• Reviewing conflicts of interests to determine how to handle them
• Recusing from positions or partnerships where conflicts of interest are active
• Publishing conflicts of interest so that others can monitor our progress
• General guidelines on the spirit of our work and how to distinguish between mutually beneficial partnerships (Wikipedians in Residence) from problematic associations (Gibraltarpedia)
• How we can partner with other organizations (WMF, other chapters, medical societies, medical schools) while being mindful of conflict of interest
• Our internal governance strategy should a conflict of interest be discovered after the fact
• A media response strategy should serious bad press about a conflict of interest happen
• Steps for 'desysoping' board members or seeking resignation should an intractable conflict of interest become apparent.

This is all messy cover-your-ass business, and yet it's essential we prepare for the worst scenarios, so that we can avoid them happening in the first place. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, Ocaasi (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, I've begun drafting a provisional guideline here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WPMED/COI

I am not a lawyer, but I like to pretend to be one sometimes. We should have this reviewed by our Board, a real lawyer, and someone from WMF Legal. Ocaasi (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in opposition to WPMEDF drafting any policy of its own. This is something that should be initiated by nothing less than the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something for grassroots volunteers. Right now, WPMEDF has no budget, no legal expertise, and very little basis for speaking authoritatively on such things, and I think it is to this groups' advantage to continue to present itself as a grassroots organization and not an organization which creates its own legal guidelines independently. I propose that until the organization consults extensively with a lawyer who is well-versed in the nuances of Wikipedia and who intends to have a long-term relationship with the organization, our policy be as follows: "Wiki Project Med Foundation follows the conflict of interest policy recommended by the Wikimedia Foundation. Read their policy here...". To do anything other this would be to presume authority which I have seen no evidence that this organization has. I encourage members of WPMEDF to participate in Wikimedia Foundation discussions on the subject and to propose policy there. If the organization were to develop its own policy, then I think it should be done after asking the WMF for advice on developing its own policy. I assume the WMF lawyers would be happy to share their time with anyone who asked for a meeting. Also, I think it would be a good idea to inform the WMF that Wiki Project Med Foundation intends to have no policy beyond what they recommend, and that the organization tell the WMF exactly that. I do not feel that it is the responsibility of every Wikipedia community group to independently create complicated legal directives of this sort and that if it really is important to the WMF that community groups have one of these, then they will advise the community groups themselves. If WPMEDF were to simply adopt the WMF's recommendations, then that would settle this issue in the least surprising way, cost nothing, be non-controversial, and be a solid defense if something goes wrong. If the organization did write its own policy, it would surprise everyone, cost a lot in time and money, be controversial, and put the Wiki Project Med Foundation at great liability if something goes wrong. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Lane, would you read and consider the above draft I started. It indeed borrows heavily from the WMF recommendations. But we are a separate organization and we need to have our own internal procedures for dealing with these situations. Even if we primarily echo the WMF we need to codify ourselves and expand upon what that means for us, specifically, as a separate organization. We are independent from the WMF--we're not even a Thematic organization--we're a non-profit with global reach. I think it's essential that we have a policy that learns from others but stands on its own. Ocaasi (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree we need a COI policy of some sort. Happy to defer someone else's though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lane, you don't seem to be getting it. The New York corporation has exactly the same authority to set its own policies that any other non-profit corporation has. The New York corporation is a 100% independent, just-as-good-as-the-next-charity legal entity, and its board has a fiduciary duty to take appropriate steps (such as setting policy) to protect the New York corporation (e.g., to protect it from a hypothetically unscrupulous future Board member). This is not just some branch of the WMF. Your board can choose in the future to become part of the WMF (if mutually agreeable), but right now, it is a totally separate entity and must take whatever steps its board believes is in the best interest of the New York corporation and its own charitable goals, no matter what some unrelated charity (like the WMF) might hypothetically prefer or not prefer.

Or, to put it another way, if you wanted to continue being just a little informal, grassroots organization with no responsibility and no need for your own policies, then you all shouldn't have incorporated. But since you did choose to incorporate, then you have all the relevant administrative hassle to deal with, which includes writing basic policies, and later reviewing them to see whether you can improve on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to consider section 3.19 of the Compass report to WMUK, which covers the best practice for good governance, admittedly substantial, charities in the UK. Rich Farmbrough 18:01 24 March 2013 (GMT).

I've made some changes to Ocaasi's draft. Mainly tailoring the language more closely to Wiki Project Med.[2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to resolve my comments above by saying that I have convinced myself that the policy described at Wiki Project Med Foundation/Conflicts of Interest is worthy of being accepted by this organization. I said as much on the talk page for that policy. I support the board of WPMF considering it for adoption. At the same time, like so much else on Wikimedia projects, there is room for perpetual input and review if anyone has clever ideas on how to make it even better. It is at least sufficient now and I also feel that it is quite good. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WMMED and Wikimedia US Coalition

Given your significant activities in the United States, I'd like to invite WMMED to join the Wikimedia US Coalition grouping, together with other chapters, protochapters, and thematic orgs that are active in the country. Of course, this does not at all preclude participation in other regional groupings, and in fact I would encourage you to look into participating in e.g. Iberocoop and Wikimedia Asia Project.

"Joining" is very informal, and doesn't come with any particular obligations; for now, the only thing that would happen is being listed together on the meta page and template. In the future, perhaps, we could also declare WMMED as one of the 'partner wiki organizations' of WikiConference USA.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like a fine idea. Has my support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• I support this proposal.Peter.C (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a non-member, non-official-voting project participant. I feel that wiki-organizations need to coordinate better with each other and I would like to see, for example, that when a regional group gets a request for support from a health organization, that they think to contact Wiki Project Med and that there can be collaboration between the two. I felt so strongly about encouraging inter-organizational communication and collaboration that a wrote a model for this at Peer review. This kind of relationship between Wiki Project Med and the US Coalition seems like exactly that kind of peer relationship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Partnership should be useful and at the moment is appropriate and within our mission scope, there's no unreasonable commitments or obligations... Lovely idea. Ocaasi (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Yes of course, taking part in groupings such as this is a natural way of developing and expanding WMMED's activity. --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I'm in Australia, but I hope my colleagues will keep me informed. We need close relationships with all regional chapters. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. No objection. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Biosthmors (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Until and unless members feel otherwise in the future, Wiki Project Med will be listed as a member of the United States Coalition of Wikimedia movement groups. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that was easy. IMO we should make a lot of our decisions like this. Most stuff should be dealt with openly and transparently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Health presentations at Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong

I just posted a list on our front page of submissions related to health for presentations at Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong. If anyone sees more then add them. When submissions are accepted the ones that did not make it will be removed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't submitted any proposals that are directly health-relevant, but did submit several proposals that resonate with Wiki Project Med, ranging from thematic organizations to OA to Science GLAM. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner will be leaving

Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation since 2007, will be leaving the WMF later this year (after a replacement is found). People are making a list of questions to ask her at Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner. Anyone may submit questions or vote in favor of questions there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is sad to see her go. I thought she did an excellent job and she will definitely be hard to replace. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Logo used

I used the logo for Wiki Project Med in the presentation submission I made to Wikimania. I also put the logo on Doc James' proposal wherein Wiki Project Med is named. See here:

• Medical content on Wikimedia projects - a fun tour
• Translators Without Borders and Wikipedia collaborating to Improve Medical Content

To what extent is this an encouraged use of the organization logo? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi folks,

Before I send it out, please review the newsletter. Give me general or specific feedback about this format. Note that the messages I'll send out will not be this long, they'll just summarize the newsletter and link to the full version. Thanks!

• Wiki_Project_Med/Newsletter/1

Ocaasi (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

interest in health libraries or nursing schools

Hello all! Here is a topic that is not related to the name or legal status of the group :) I recently talked with some librarians from a nursing school here and they are interested in doing a Wikipedia project; I told them about Wiki Project Med. My question is whether this group sees itself as being inclusive of all health disciplines, including nursing and public health? (for context, there does not seem to be much overlap between en:wp's WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Nursing; and I know this group has been rooted more in medicine. I'm just not sure what kind of outreach scope you are envisioning). -- phoebe | talk 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes we are more than happy to invite anyone who wishes to take an evidenced based view of health care to join us. Many of our board members are not physicians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If they are looking for a simple article-collaboration group at the English Wikipedia, then they should feel free to take over and en:WP:REVIVE the dormant en:WP:WikiProject Nursing. (Everyone welcome at WP:MED, too, of course, but the nursing group is focused on that subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

At least half of the people on this organization's board have done significant outreach in the Wikipedia Education Program. I think that there is a lot of interest within this group for supporting outreach to students at health learning institutions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool. Well, if any project members find themselves in the SF Bay area in August, let me know; I've got a talk slated at the nursing school. Exact date tbd. -- phoebe | talk 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phoebe, it'd be great if your reached out to Michael Turken, the 4th year medical student at UCSF. He's given talks on Wikipedia and Medicine before and is generally awesome. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The name

The name of the corporation is Wiki Project Med Foundation. We don't have to "trade" under that name though. Personally, I'd prefer we called ourselves Wiki Medicine Project, or WikiProject Medicine. Maybe Wiki Health Project (if we want to widen our perceived umbrella). Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping Wikimedia Medicine if the WMF allows us to use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about between then and now. I find it so much easier to refer to this as "the medicine project" or "wikiproject medicine". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Strategic planning

Many of us here believe there should be much more involvement of the academic and professional medical communities in the curating of Wikimedia's medical content. Once the visual editor is running and comfortably bedded down, I think we should launch a campaign aimed at medical experts. In the past, we've briefly discussed letters to journals on this topic, and presentations to conferences. It may be time for us to discuss this important element of future planning in more detail.

I think we should time and coordinate the approach to journals, conference addresses and other elements of the campaign carefully for maximum impact. Any thoughts on this would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea that is central to the purpose and success of the organization. Should we have a meeting soon that would be soley for the purpose of discussing this? Peter.C (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should hammer out membership first. Discussion is taking place above. Than maybe we could meet and discuss both issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I always prefer to discuss things on-wiki if it's an option. It allows plenty of time to think and rethink stuff before saying it, allowing me to appear so much smarter than I really am, but mainly because it gives WhatamIdoing an opportunity to keep us in line (and others the opportunity to chime in too). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree with your position Anthony. As we are all in different time zone and I work all hours :-) Keeping almost everything on Wikipedia not only allows greater input but more of the board to be involved / is simpler.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO to make its publications available free of charge as part of a new Open Access policy

UNESCO to make its publications available free of charge as part of a new Open Access policy Hopefully, this will inspire WHO. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Great hopefully this will help move efforts with WHO forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Donors

I know we have "Donations are welcome but confer no special privileges" in the membership policy proposal. That's short and sweet. But what if someone approaches a Board member by email and says "I'm considering giving $10,000, and I was curious how this money might be used." At what point does a reply to that email start becoming special? Should donors and their potential COI's be made public? Do donors have to be members? The potential for donors to use money to contradict an organization's perceived mission is a theme in this recent article and it got me thinking.

I know we've been making progress on Wiki Project Med Foundation/Conflicts of Interest. Should information on donors be incorporated there? Biosthmors (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Board might want to spend a while talking about what they mean by "no special privileges". Some donors are motivated by having their names publicized: is that a "special privilege"? Some donors (e.g., grant-making foundations) want interim progress reports or to have the use of their funds accounted for separately: is that a "special privilege"? It is normal for major donors to have an opportunity to talk to Board members (especially during meetings in which you are asking for their money): is that a "special privilege"? What about making a donation specifically to support a given project: is that a "special privilege"? (If not, you might have to return the money.)

I suspect that what you primarily meant was "during Board elections, donors don't get extra votes", but you might have had other thoughts. The important thing is for the Board members to have a sense of what they mean by "no special privileges". You don't have to document absolutely every contingency, especially not at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)