Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Partnerships/Recommendations/Q1 R6

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)

Very elitist approach[edit]

I am not saying there would not be some benefits to providing a clear platform where to engage potential partners. There would be benefits and I would support the existence of a such a platform. But having it be the single entry point is irrealistic and not the best way to empower wikimedian volunteers. Let's face it... in most cases, partnerships do happen thanks to human relationships. A wikipedian volunteer speaks at a local event, then is approached by an interested museum official and they start a conversation. Depending on the place, on the type of partnership that emerges from the conversation, a UserGroup, or a chapter, or the WMF is brought into the conversation. Or not actually... Can we picture that wikipedian at his local event immediately directing the potential partner to the platform and telling him to "continue the conversation over there" with unknown individuals (in all likelyhood from another country and another language) ? I can not. This is not how things enroll.

Besides, a single entry point also raises lots of question of who would be in charge of that entry point. Which people ? Which structure ? And what about the very negative feeling for the regular wikipedian who would not be empowered to engage into building such partnership but would have to hand out that to others ? Anthere (talk)

I agree. IMHO, the best approach is one that involves volunteers. On the one hand, the Foundation should provide support for those who want to reach out to other groups for various reasons. Say, a volunteer is interested in working with a religious group to better know them so they can better use reliable sources to present that group's story. (For some of us, approaching people we have absolutely no connection to is intimidating.) The Foundation could provide resource people to train volunteers how to make these kind of "cold calls". On the other hand, a group that wants to work with a Wikimedia project needs a contact person, & the most efficient one would be a Foundation employee. This employee could screen the group's representative, explain which project would be the best fit for them, then hand them off to a volunteer. This way the movement benefits, & not just one portion of it. -- Llywrch (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Anthere and Llywrch:. Apologies for a late response on this. With regard to the "single point", I share some concerns about the centralisation aspect of that and where it places power. These recommendations are still at a draft stage and being worked on.
More generally, I think there's an interesting question of how much we should adapt our structures to be more "findable" by potential partners and whether the compromises are worth it. My sense (from working in partnerships for a few years now) is that as a movement we are not short of willing partners, we are just short of the capacity to work effectively with all of them. Battleofalma (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Quite true. A central point could help alleviate some of this. But might also have detrimental consequences. Anthere (talk)

Need a Central Database and Transparency[edit]

As noted in comments to the other recommendations, we need complete transparency in order to coordinate partnerships, evaluate their effectiveness and police COI. A central point would help create and maintain the database and then answer questions for any prospective partner.

For example, suppose a volunteer from a Chapter approaches a local Museum to create a Wikipedian-in-Residence as a paid position. There can be COI and a suboptimal result if those private discussions define the entire partnership. If the Museum is instead referred to the central point, the Museum can find out more about best practices for the Wikipedian-in-Residence process including an open staffing selection.Hlevy2 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

From Catalan Salon[edit]

Incompatible with decentralization. We disagree with the assumption made: in our experience with GLAM, all of the partners were able to find us (...)