Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Partnerships/Q3&4 R2

Too vague[edit]

I would have liked case-studies including partners who are happy and who are not. Some concrete ideas about broader recognition ... Wish to support but too much attribution can be effectively seen as advertising. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving credit where it is due is on the same level as giving blame where it is due. They are both forms of recognition. The important part is that the recognition is both due and proportionate. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit rich[edit]

... from a foundation that shows nothing but active contempt for its volunteers through sham consultations, top-down decision making and arbitrary enforcement (see e.g. w:WP:FRAM, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, MediaViewer, superprotect, ...). MER-C (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is not coming from WMF. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely it isn't. See the page Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Partnerships. I published the recommendations as sub-pages of WG pages in order to make a clear link between the recommendations and WGs. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Catalan Salon[edit]

Our doubt comes when recognizing: How? We don't want paid editing (...)