Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Revenue Streams/Recommendations/5
Work in progress
I just made a comment on Recommendation 4 that applies here too. I support the idea as a sustainable way to do useful but non-core activities, but I wouldn't count on it as a way to raise funds that can be used for other activities. - Laurentius (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Already implemented by some communities
This has been widely done by some affiliates and can be read in the Outreach website of Wikimedia. Nonetheless, once again, the recommendation is too short. Consulting services is a very sensitive topic and should be further explain to assess it is following the basic ethical principles. As a non-profit organisation, we should always provide this help to partnerships (according with the volunteer-driven community, capacity, and ability) and just use it as a revenue if the partnership has the economical means to pay for it -and if this income is going to be reinverted in expenses for GLAM projects. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A blanket endorsement of government grants?
Collaborations and partnerships with government organizations have provided much useful information and expertise for the encyclopedia, and will remain important.
However, wasn't part of the idea of Wikipedia to provide an independent source of information which the public can edit? How would you propose to maintain this independence if the organization's revenue is based on government grants? Oliveleaf4 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan Salon
We believe that we all should walk towards this recomendation, but we are not sure that all the members can carry it out because of their current situation (for example, ours).