Talk:WikiProject Med/Archives/2013

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Anthonyhcole in topic Wikimania meet-up

Plastic surgery articles[edit]

In the English Wikipedia, I have just deleted a large amount of mumbo-jumbo claiming that any woman who has externally visible labia minora suffers from labial "hypertrophy" which is an "indication" for plastic surgery. Wikipedia has had problems in this area before [1][2][3], and it seems obvious that the way Wikipedia presents the desirability, necessity and risks of plastic surgery will have a significant effect on the plastic surgery industry's turnover. The en:WP article on this particular procedure could do much more to highlight the way the marketing of this fad trades on women's and girls' insecurities; cf. the German article. Careful attention and watchfulness from knowledgeable editors in this topic area would be much appreciated; ideally there should be a task force watching these articles for marketing-motivated edits. Thanks! Andreas JN466 09:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Probably best at en:WT:MED. This effort is more about the forming of collaborations with other organizations and doing real world outreach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please choose another name[edit]

Hello, the name you ended up with is very easily confused with the Wikimedia Foundation. Please change it.

Both abbreviating medicine to "Med" (as opposed to other options) and tacking on "Foundation" (as opposed to any other term) seem like unwise choices if you were not aiming for such confusion.

Even the casual interactions you describe as the reasons to incorporate so quickly -- contacting groups and institutions to say that you are "a representative of something" as Anthonycole said -- seem likely to confuse whomever you contact.

Is there a discussion of alternate names here on the wiki? I see only the comments above when changes were announced. SJ talk  06:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

We wished to go with Wikimedia Medicine. Foundation is what the state of NY gave us. Not sure if other options are available. We are looking into applying to use the term medicine. Will keep you posted but with everything legal it takes some time (months anyway I am sure).
I am sure the people we are working with will not get confused. All are familiar with the abbreviation "Med" for medicine. And Wikimedia no matter how you look at it does not equal medicine. The one who wish to get confused will do so no matter what we call ourselves "Wikileaks" anyone.
Further more we are representatives of something we are "self appointed" representatives of Wikiproject Medicine. Many of use involved have already done a fair bit of medical outreach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
SJ, from some of the comments above, it appears that the State of New York does not permit non-profits to use the word "medicine" in their names without special permission, so "Wiki Medicine" (the preferred name) is not actually a legal option. There are several discussions above, such as at #Name of this group. If you have good ideas for alternatives, I'm sure people would be happy to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We are going to apply for permission to use the term medicine. No guarantee we will get it or how long this will take.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is just the name of incorporation; you can have a separate name for carrying out business, which is shorter or more wiki-focused. Some possibilities: Friends of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Medicine, Wiki Health Foundation, Wikis for Health, Global Medical Knowledge, "Medical Knowledge Society". 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Per the above comment from the IP, in Australia you can "trade" under a name that is different from the corporation name, but you do have to register the trading name (i.e., officially associate the trading name with the corporation name). Wiki UK Limited trades as "Wikimedia UK". Is the problem that, in New York, we can't incorporate using the word "medicine", or we can't register a trading name that includes the word "medicine"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
All we are working on right now is the official name. Yes we can trade under a different name. Our official name cannot contain medicine and legals says we will likely not be able to get this permission. Not sure if we will be able to trade under this name but we can work on that latter. A would be content with "Wikiproject Med. Foundation" which would be an easy change to make legally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I wonder wheter the WMF trademarked "WikiProject". IMO they should have if possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
They have not which means that we can use it as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello all. The IP above is en:user:sj. I met with him this last weekend and talked to him about this and I asked him for some examples of acceptable names. He suggested these and also said that we, just like anyone else, can run names through the Affiliations Committee or secondarily through the board of trustees. Sj is on the board of trustees and his advice is worth considering.
Here is a restatement of the problem: members of this organization settled on "Wikimedia Medicine" as an appropriate name. Later, the members got advice from different places including Aff Com that using the name "Wikimedia" was not appropriate except after approval from Aff Com, and this group does not have approval to use that name. Because of this, the name "Wikimedia" turned to "Wiki". When the members tried to incorporate in New York state, the lawyer and perhaps the state registrar advised that using the term "Medicine" in a name was not appropriate except in cases in which one has some kind of licensing to represent some kind of authority in medicine, which this group does not currently have. That may not be the actual reason - I am not clear on the details, but it was a state-registration problem. Also at the state level, there was some advice that the term "Foundation" should be appended to the end of the name to meet local legal requirements for groups not to represent themselves as providing medical care if they are not. A "foundation" clearly is not providing medical care.
Because of these changes, the original name "Wikimedia Medicine" which the members chose turned into "Wiki Med Foundation". Through this series of small changes, there was never again discussion about "Wiki Med Foundation" sounding very similar to "Wikimedia Foundation". This group never intended to represent itself as the Wikimedia Foundation. SJ and I did not really talk about whether this was a good name or not, but as he left me to think about this I began thinking to ask the board to consider the name again. I think that it might be problematic for this group to have a name so close to the WMF's name and I would like to hear thoughts from others. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reconsider what name again? I would be happy enough with the name WikiProject Med Foundation. But am also happy with Wiki Med as I do not think confusion will occur. People know that Med is an abbreviation for medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen anyone use "Med" as an abbreviation for "Media". Has anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think that the name "Wiki Med Foundation" should be reconsidered. Regardless of the meaning of the word "med", this is an multilingual organization and the expectations of non-English speakers should be considered as well. "Wiki Med" could be rendered as "Wikimed", and "Wiki Med Foundation", "Wikimed Foundation", and "Wikimedia Foundation" could seem similar to someone in some language because the difference could be only 1-2 vowel sounds. I do agree that there seems to be more potential for confusion with the name "Wiki Med Foundation" than with some other options.
Doc James' proposal of "WikiProject Med Foundation" sounds good to me. Perhaps others have thoughts on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In reading through this, I'm a little confused about who is supporting what name. I think summarizing them, and putting comments next to each, might help -- I encourage you all to edit this list:

  • Wiki Med Foundation: The official name. Problematic for day-to-day use, due to confusion with WMF. Nobody supports for day-to-day use (?)
  • Wiki Health Foundation: Health ≠ Medicine, maybe too far from organization's intent?
  • Wikis for Health: See above
  • WikiProject Med. Foundation: …
  • Wiki Med: …

Maybe people could put their initials (or comments) beside the ones they like? -Pete F (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

First thing first we cannot us medicine thus removed these.
Next WikiHealth already exists here Thus I am unhappy with either WikiHealth Foudation or Wikis for Health. I am cool with Wiki Med if the WMF is cool. I am fine with WikiProject Med. Anyway will wait until the WMF weights in before I pay to have the name changed. I have sent SJ an email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
James, is Wiki Medicine Foundation completely ruled out now, or is that still a possibility? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes the term "medicine" cannot be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Even the abbreviation of the name suggested by you still share the same as the foundation (WMF), which could potentially be confusing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Which? The proposal is to change to "Wikiproject Med Foundation". Are there people who have problems with this one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wikiproject Med Foundation is clearly different from Wikimedia Foundation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Name change The name is officially changed to "Wiki Project Med" as of Jan 22 2012 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc James, could you clarify where the name was officially changed to "Wiki Project Med"? With the state of New York? Is Foundations still in the name officially or was that dropped? Sorry for more questions about the naming issue. :-) It seems to be taking up loads of time, doesn't it! I have some ideas for collaboration in Kentucky with this project so eager to move on past it, too. (Sydney Poore) FloNight (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes "Wiki Project Med. Foundation" Logo will be out in a couple of days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, is that Wiki Project Med Foundation or Wiki Project Med. Foundation with a (.)? Ocaasi (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Project Med Foundation, Inc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Clarification of status[edit]

Dear Wiki Med,

In light of the recent incorporation of Wiki Med Foundation Inc. against the advice of the Affiliations Committee, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify the Affiliations Committee's current position.

As far as the Affiliations Committee is concerned official e-mail contact was lost and the recognition process has stalled following the incorporation against our advice; however, we are happy to restart it whenever Wiki Med wishes.

As previously, the Affiliations Committee will be interested to ascertain that the requirements and the elements of the step-by-step guide have all been followed. In particular, whether there is an active involvement of the membership, whether the goals, structure and basics of the organization have been discussed, whether the organization has found a name that is accepted by the Wikimedia community, Wiki Med, and AffCom; whether the bylaws or connected policies have been drafted and properly reviewed by the participants of the group. (As running projects is an optional step in the guide, the recognition process is not predicated on projects run by the group, but the viability and dynamics, often demonstrated through discussion or projects, is subject to careful review. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the good work done by Wiki Med and look forward to more members starting to get actively involved in projects.)

We see the recognition as the result of a process through which we get to know the organization as it develops and gather enough data to make a recommendation to the WMF Board of Trustees and at the end of which the organization incorporates. The premature incorporation of Wiki Med will not change this into an instantaneous review, if anything, it will inspire more caution on our part: we are happy to observe and provide guidance throughout the process of finding the above answers (as well as others that have come up or may come up), finding a self-definition and expanding membership from a very small core group of activists to the dozens that have signed up and showed interest. We are ready to engage in a good faith dialogue as long as Wiki Med takes it seriously and does the same.

In addition, in light of the history of deliberately not following AffCom advice and the name change to the confusing Wiki Med Foundation, Inc., the Wikimedia Foundation has reached the following conclusion:

  1. WMF will not provide any recognition or trademark permission until Wiki Med Foundation changes its name legally to another name that is acceptable to AffCom and WMF Legal; and
  2. WMF will not provide any recognition or trademark permission until Wiki Med Foundation participates actively and constructively with AffCom, satisfying the requirements and review of AffCom and receiving approval from AffCom and the WMF Board.

Hope this clarifies the situation. In re-reading this talk page, you will find a number of open, very briefly or non-conclusively answered questions and suggestions that would be a good place to rekindle your internal discussions leading to better clarity. When you are ready, please get in touch with the committee through the affcom(_AT_) address. If you have questions about the WMF's conclusions please contact the General Counsel. –Bence (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bence. We will continue with projects in collaboration with other Wikimedia chapters. We are in no hurry for official recognition by the WMF and are happy to remain an unofficial thematic group at this time. We of course will not represent ourselves as having any official relationship with the WMF and will only present ourselves as a group of active Wikipedians involved with Wikiproject Medicine. If we take part in outreach efforts in partnership with officially recognized national chapters they may of course use the official logos as per their signed agreements in these outreach efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We appreciate that you are taking steps to respond to AffCom and WMF’s concerns over the name Wiki Med Foundation. We ask that you engage in a proactive, cooperative, and constructive dialogue with AffCom whenever you decide to seek official recognition as a thematic organization within the Wikimedia movement. AffCom is entrusted by the WMF Board with providing guidance to thematic organizations, and WMF Legal is supportive of AffCom’s role in the process.
We would also underscore Bence’s point that trademark permissions cannot be granted until you cooperate with AffCom in going through the proper channels to formal recognition by WMF. This includes unauthorized use of any WMF logos as well as the “Wikimedia” and "Wikipedia" word mark. If you choose to remain an unrecognized entity, we would ask that you proactively make your status as an unaffiliated group clear to avoid confusion. Also, just to avoid any confusion, chapters do not have the legal right to "lend" their use of the trademark to unaffiliated entities, even if those unaffiliated entities are "partners."
Cheers, Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure what I said was "If we take part in outreach efforts in partnership with officially recognized national chapters they may of course use the official logos as per their signed agreements in these outreach efforts." This of course is not lending of which no mention was made. And we will eventually work on an association but it appears that Bence / Affcom wishes us to prove ourselves first as a corporation. Thus we will give it a few months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I hope the above clarifies AffCom's current position: in general, we would like Wiki Project Med to figure out its goals, structure, internal dynamics, etc. in cooperation and consultation with AffCom. For the sake of clarity, the position elaborated above represents AffCom's current view, and slightly differs from the informal Christmas chat we had, to take into account the added urgency to resolve the situation as the efficient operation of Wiki Project Med is constrained by the WMF's trademark policy. Even in my earlier comments, I tried to be clear that we are interested in Wiki Med resolving and responding to the elaborated fundamental questions, "proving yourself" is not really the correct cognitive frame, it is more about "figuring out who you are". –Bence (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Bence we invite you are anyone else from AffCom to jump in and get involved in further developing the goals and structure of the organization in collaboration with those of us here who are already working on it. We even have some other Hungarian members. With respect to "figuring out who you are" IMO the best way to do this is by being oneself over a prolonged period of time, it is an iterative process which only death brings to an end, now back to writing content :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am unsure what your comments mean. Maybe it would help to look at a specific example. A couple of weeks ago Jake and I flew to San Francisco to give a week of lectures on Wikipedia and Medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. This was done under the auspices of Wikimedia Canada and Wiki Project Med Foundation. Ever day for five days we spent 5 hours giving drop in editing sessions and a 1 hour lecture. In addition we meet with the assistant dean and personal from the library.

We used the Wikipedia logo here [4], in the poster we placed outside the door, in my presentation, and in the advertisement for the event on the UCSF library website [5] (note that this should have read "one of the leading" note "the leading" and I have asked them to correct this). We have also dealt with the naming issue. My opinion is that it is well within the rights of Wikimedia Canada to use the logo in this fashion when involved with putting on this sort of event. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Based on my meeting last week with the main UCSF student James worked with, I would like to heartily endorse the project described above. There is a strong interest at UCSF in weaving Wikipedia into their curriculum, and it seems that WP Med is providing a strong, steady hand in helping them explore that interest in a way that will fit well with Wikipedia's mission and culture. And specifically to the points under discussion here, I did not sense any indication that anybody was confused about how official or unofficial WP Med was. In short, I think this is good work, and I hope that whatever needs to happen to allow it to go forward without a lot of friction, should happen. -Pete F (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi James,
I'm with the legal team, and posting this response at Geoff Brigham's request! As you may recall, when WikiProject Med requested a trademark license for the events at UCSF, Stephen LaPorte explained that the Wikimedia marks should not be used for “off-wiki” activity due to the fact that WikiProject Med has not yet been recognized as an official movement affiliate. As far as I know, that remains the case today. Thus WikiProject Med should refrain from using Wikimedia trademarks until it can work through the necessary affiliate recognition processes with AffCom.
Of course, Wikimedia Canada does have an official agreement with WMF that gives it certain trademark usage rights. However, the WMCA Chapter Agreement is limited to a particular geographic scope. WMCA’s sponsorship of any event and its use of Wikimedia trademarks should fall within the parameters of its agreement with WMF. Any event that is organized under the sponsorship of WMCA should, in fact, be a WMCA event. We ask that you represent an event as sponsored by WMCA only if the chapter is actually involved in organizing the event. This may also mean that a representative from the chapter attends the event to ensure compliance with chapter guidelines, and the chapter accepts responsibility for the event complying with our trademark policy and visual identity guidelines.
Please let us know if you have any further questions. Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Great so a representative of WMCA was at the event and that representative was me. This event was organized under the sponsorship of WMCA and thus was a WMCA event. This is the first I have heard about the "Agreement is limited to a particular geographic scope." It does state "Wikimedia Canada is authorized to cover the geographic region of Canada" but I would not take that to mean that it CANNOT carry on events in other regions. Are you implying that no chapter is allowed to carry out events in another country? Let me know if you guys have any more questions... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Chapters of course may use authorized Wikimedia trademarks when the chapter is actively involved and responsible for an event and project that falls within its mandate. But chapters cannot use Wikimedia logos for events primarily organized by third-party, unaffiliated organizations to create a brand for those unaffiliated organizations.
Thanks. Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Naming outreach events[edit]

I just categorized the UCSF outreach event on English Wikipedia. See en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/UCSF#References. I called this a "WikiProject Medicine meetup". If we have more meetups, and they start going into this category, then it seems like the usual name for meetups organized by this group on English Wikipedia will be "WikiProject Medicine meetups". How does everyone feel about that? Is this non-surprising and the most natural way to describe such events that WikiProject Med Foundation and others organize in connection with English Wikipedia's WikiProject Medicine? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Meetup, editathon, editing session, outreach event, lecture series... any of those work for me. Ocaasi (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply


I like your new logo. I think the use of the stethoscope was an inspired choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks it was a bit of a group effort with Abhishek leading the way. And hopefully this will be your new logo to as I still hope to convince you to join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply


People here might be interested in Grants:IEG/Complete and improve ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders in portuguese Wikipedia, a proposal for a small grant (US $100–$300) to pay for this med student's internet connection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. ICD 11 is coming out soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't like the idea of paying for edition. I will invite the user to do this voluntarily with my help. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Chapters Meeting 2013[edit]

You should know that the Chapters Meeting will be 18-21 April but WikiProject Med was not invited for this event. Once they use to call even chapters-to-be as you can confirm in this list, I think or they forgot WikiProjMed or they have a motivation to do this. It should be interesting to get in touch with the meeting's organization and make a formal request of participation for WikiProjMed. If they really have a reasonable justification it is of our interest to know what it should be. What do you think in this respect? Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The concern expressed is that as we are not officially approved by AffCom thus they do not feel comfortable inviting us.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Per the above link it looks like we are now invited. While I could have attended if I would have known a week or two ago I now cannot. Anyone else from the board interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can put in for a scholarship, but that would be the only way I could consider it. Ocaasi (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmmmm... Biosthmors (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, not sure what the hmmmm.. was for, but I submitted a scholarship application this week. Other considerations might be for fundraising either within WPMED or outside of it, should that fall through or be inadequate. I also don't presume I'm the only one of us who could go, although I am willing and able and on the way to building a relationship with some of the AffCom folks. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
It would be great if people could make it. I am happy with either one of you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
By Hmmmm... I was just signalling some interest in attending, though I don't know if it would work out on my end. I hope you get the scholarship! I guess many chapters will have two representatives in attendance? Biosthmors (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer it if people with actual outreach experience (or more energy than me) went but if the second place isn't going to be filled, I'd be interested in attending. Basically, I'll step aside for Biosthmors, Vini, or anyone really - as I feel I'm the least suitable, but we'll need to decide fairly soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

If Brian is just down the road maybe this will work :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
That sounds very convenient. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with all above. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ocaasi, have you heard back about your scholarship? Cheaper flights to Europe are going to start drying up soon (I'm in Australia). So, if I'm attending, I'll need to book in the next week, otherwise it will become too expensive for me. Is anyone else interested in taking this second place? Biosthmors, can you fit it in? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I always think that we're better off sending someone who volunteers, so I'd encourage Anthony to take up the second place and then we will have a settled decision. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with any of you going and am available too. I can get there by train, so can book on short notice if necessary. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be great to send Daniel as he is very well versed with what we do and also shows that we are not just focused on one side of the globe. Peter.C (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm going to be in Milan as a member of the FDC. I would like to take off that hat and meet with whoever goes from WikiProject Med. I arrive on April 20th. I'm very excited by this organization and want to take advantage of being in the same place as several members to talk about ideas and plans. FloNight (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I support Daniel and Ocaasi repesenting us at Milan; Daniel because of his proximity and his involvement with Wikiproject Open Access, and Ocaasi for his outreach, his stewardship of the Wikipedia Library, etc.. Could other board members who agree please explicitly endorse both Daniel and Ocaasi below this comment so that we can notify the organisers?

I would very much appreciate a detailed report from both of you, Daniel and Ocaasi; perhaps a daily post here about what's happening, what's being discussed, what you've learned, your thoughts, etc. How do you feel about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pending confirmation of funding support of course, I'd be happy to keep detailed record of happenings at the event. Daniel, it'd be great for you to come and also to have you as a backup should other approaches fall through! FloNight, great that you'll be there! Ocaasi (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I hope Daniel and Ocaasi can both represent us. Biosthmors (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with daily reports and invite suggestions as to the format. Pointers to good reports from past years would also be helpful. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to have a discussion about what positions/messages we want our representatives to take to this conference. Would a Skype conference call be a suitable venue?--Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that seems a useful discussion to have, and is probably doable via Skype. I just registered for the meeting. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Ocaasi has had to pull out because of schedule incompatibilities, and Biosthmors has stepped into the breach.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

State of the movement session on Saturday[edit]

During the Chapters Conference, there is a three-part session on the state of the Wikimedia movement, where each chapter or other group (including us, on Saturday) has 3 min to brief the others about their current state of affairs. I suggest that we go for a maximum of three slides for that, and invite proposals as to what should go there (just edit the subsections below). Input received here before 9pm UTC on Friday 19 will make it into the slides. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Laurentius's email said, "You will be welcomed to introduce whatever topic about your organization you think is important to share with the rest of the group, such as most important activities from the last year, future plans or encountered problems." That's a lot for 3 minutes! I'd recommend concentrating on what we've done and where we're going, and leave the legal detail/problems encountered for the informal chats you'll have while networking. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Our slides are now up at Wiki Project Med/Chapters Conference 2013. We are scheduled for around 7:45 am UTC tomorrow. Given that watching 20 such presentations in a row is a bit hard on the audience, we have opted to put not much text into the slides. Most of your comments below have been incorporated into what we are going to say, though. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Slide 1[edit]

  • Scope: Legal affairs
  • Bullet points:
    • WikiProject Med is registered as a non-profit in New York
    • by-laws modeled after Wikimedia NYC's by-laws and conflict of interest policy modeled after Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Foundation policies

Slide 2[edit]

  • Scope: Activities
  • Bullet points:
    • Initiate cooperation with institutional partners or learned societies
    • Supporting the development of Wikimedians in Residence at WHO, Cochrane Collaboration, and Consumer Reports
    • Collaborating with Translators Without Borders to translate key health care content
    • Last year: UK Editor Outreach with WMUK, WMCAN
    • Last year: Jake & James at UCSF giving talks and hands-on editing sessions

Slide 3[edit]

  • Scope: Outlook
  • Bullet points:
    • Wikipedia might be the single most consulted source of health information in English and other languages, and in any case is a very popular source of information. Health articles are also among the most popular Wikipedia articles. Example - en:Metformin, a diabetes drug, ranks in the top 7000 articles by traffic, putting it in the top 1% of Wikipedia articles. The same can be said about many articles titled with medical terms.
    • Recognition as a thematic organization would greatly facilitate our work


Why metformin, rather than something with a much higher ranking like en:Pneumonia (#338 when I checked) or en:Tuberculosis (#426)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that metformin is in the top 0.2%, and the articles you proposed are in the top 0.01%. Both of those figures are shocking. I like to use "metformin" because it is a term which few people know, and I anticipate that most people would expect that the most popular Wikipedia articles are on well-known topics. Other health terms like the ones you suggested are even more popular. I am not sure what is the best outreach strategy but I suppose eventually we should talk this through and make an elevator pitch so that anyone can quickly present on the Wiki Project Med Foundation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that using the less common example also gives you the occasional opportunity to say something like "...and there are many articles that are even more popular". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

For bullet point 2, we can add that we have submitted an article (dengue fever) to Open Medicine and that we hope to collaborate with journals to further improve upon, and draw academics into, Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should also point out that we are working with the National Institutes of Health. Peter.C (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If anyone has ideas on which images we could use to make the presentation more visually appealing, please let us know as well. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The logo which I shared above or perhaps just the top of the Wiki Project Med homepage on meta, the chart of page views for tuberculosis, the colorful chart showing which articles have been translated, or the infobox at the top of en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine which shows that the project has more than 30 pages of community discussion might be good options. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Report from Thursday April 18[edit]

In the Education Workshop

Today, three parallel sessions took place throughout the day: Education, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikimedia Chapters Association meeting. Both Biosthmors and I went to the first of them, of which the collaborative notes can be found in this Etherpad. Most important from our perspective is that about 20 of the countries represented in the room are already engaged in higher education, and we have made them aware that we are interested in teaming up on matters related to medicine. A number of chapters are also engaged in direct communication with the respective ministries over matters of curricula, though higher education is not a priority in these talks. A group in Saudi Arabia is translating content to and from about 10 languages by way of students studying languages - there too is room for joining forces with our translation efforts. Finally, many members of the Affiliation Committee are here, and we had a chance to chat with some of them. Main point: we will have to show that the Wiki Project Med community is active beyond the board members. Also, we should keep in mind that existing chapters typically get the exclusive rights to represent the Wikimedia movement within their respective jurisdiction, so we should consider how we incorporate systematic involvement of existing chapters into our activities. In discussions on the matter, the case of Wiki Loves Monuments came up as something that could be considered functionally equivalent to a thematic organization but that is successful without having any specific legal structure. Internet at the venue and in the hotels is crappy, but the general atmosphere is very pleasant. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the report Daniel. I'm intrigued by the thought of showing that the WPMED community is active beyond the board members. There's a list of 67 active Wikimedians from at least 13 countries at Wiki Project Med #People interested. As a community our connections extend beyond Wikimedia as a glance at the attendance list with 58 names on this page will show. Might be worth pointing AffCom members to those webpages to give them an idea of our engagement. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes and our outreach efforts are bringing more people into the Wikimedia movement. While some of these people may not have joined Wikiproject Med directly they are working with us to do outreach either independently or from their position within their current organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Report from Friday April 19[edit]

Ice breaking: the team challenge was to wrap an egg in straws, so that it would survive a drop from the fifth floor.
  • Just in brief: the first "State of the movement" session today gave us some ideas on what works and what does not with this audience, so we decided to adjust our presentation accordingly. There were interesting sessions on how chapters can collaborate or share tools, on the WMUK governance review and on "beyond chapters". We didn't get a chance to write things down in detail but will try to do so tomorrow. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Synthesizing some points of interest, no matter the day: there is an active Portuguese Chapter member who works at a blood institute. Also, the Portuguese Chapter is looking for ways to reinvigorate themselves, and they mentioned the possibility of funding an activity there. Doc Elisa should be brought into this, as she is a Portuguese physician. There is also WMF interest (with Portuguese being a strategic priority because of Brazil) and Everton Zanella Alvarenga is working to help the Portuguese Wikipedia with a specific interest in boosting the output of their WikiProject Medicine. He plans to target hospitals in Brazil for outreach. We could do a better job of reaching across languages, as it is part of our mission. Other active chapter members with specific medical interests are in Russia and the Philippines. These seem like good potential members. And at this point, Portuguese seems like a possible target for collaboration, but that could change, depending upon what languages our active members speak. Lane, I'm sorry the Bangladesh chapter members had their Visa's denied. RexxS, I've made contact with 3 of the UK representatives. Biosthmors (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Grr... Bangladeshis were refused for Israel, United States, and now Italy. Thanks for trying. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
One of our board members (Vinicius) is also from Brazil. Having spent a half year there during medical training I would love to go back. We are looking at organizing a talk about Wikipedia and Medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Excellent. Portugal could be an option as well, as the chapter there is looking for new opportunities. Biosthmors (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great you talked to Everton and WMPT guys! I'll put some ideas here later. We would like to focus health content in pt.wikipedia and we would love to have WikiProject Med support. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That sounds great. Besides Portuguese/Brazil/Portugal, other bits of knowledge include the following: the Treasurer of Wikimedia Sverige (Sweden) is a physician; Wikimedia Spain mentioned something with the Royal National Academy of Medicine, and I've emailed for more details; Wikimedia Estonia representatives told me of an exhibit at the University of Tartu History Museum with historical medical equipment. Biosthmors (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
But did your egg break!?!? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I happily report back that neither Daniel's group nor mine had such a tragic consequence occur. :-) We were encouraged to split up to work with others. Biosthmors (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Report from Saturday April 20[edit]

Wiki Project Med on stage

We're writing this up right now. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, we have to leave the venue, so postpone for later. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Next try: The presentation this morning went well, and a number of people in the audience could be seen nodding along. Most people in the room were already aware of us from interactions on the previous days, and their presentations on the other hand provided us with further information on existing activities in the higher education sector (e.g. in Czechia, Russia, Serbia), on which we then followed up during the breaks. In the other sessions, the discussion of how country-based entities could collaborate with thematic ones came up repeatedly, and medicine was often used as an example, and in the process, we realized that Wikivoyage is a platform on which health-related information would fit well and that could help us in reaching out beyond Wikipedia. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes maybe more links from Wikivoyage to Wikipedia's health content? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
James started this thread and there is some WikiVoyage community hesitation, which seems natural. They were on their own for long time before becoming incorporated into the WMF, and too many of us showing up there as "outsiders" could be frowned upon by some. There does seem to be significant overlap between the goals of WikiVoyage articles and Wikipedia articles, though. Biosthmors (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Report from Sunday April 21[edit]

Q & A with the Board

Today, we continued to discuss with individual chapters how medical topics could fit into their activities, and besides the countries already mentioned earlier, promising avenues for that exist in South Africa, Estonia, India, Argentina, Ukraine, Mexico and Israel. There was also a session on fundraising beyond the Wikimedia movement (cf. Etherpad), which provided a number of ideas worth exploring, e.g. the good possibilities to get youth-related work funded from European programs. The day concluded with a barcamp that included sessions on the proposed Chapters dialogue scheme as well as a continuation of the how to keeping chapter volunteers active workshop from yesterday and a Science GLAM session, that also touched upon medical GLAMs (e.g. Medical museums). Overall, I found the event very stimulating, and participants from existing chapters were very open to explore opportunities to interact with thematic organizations, particularly in the area of medicine. Lots of follow-ups to do, and some of them might lead to interesting new activities. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Signpost coverage[edit]

This week's issue of the Signpost has a News and notes piece on the conference. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Choosing Wisely - an effort to get organizational engagement in Wikimedia projects[edit]

Hello, I just posted a message on English WikiProject Medicine about Choosing Wisely, a public health educational campaign with which I work. I thought it might be of interest to Wiki Project Med because it is an outreach effort by large medical societies to start sharing information on Wikipedia when previously they had not acknowledged Wikipedia as a communication channel. Anyone can see my message at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Choosing_Wisely_-_a_model_for_organizational_engagement. I think that it would be good for Wiki Project Med to develop policies on how health organizations can partner with the Wikimedia community whenever they are planning educational campaigns to share free health information with the public. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd strongly support the formation of a working group/special interest group focussed on engagement with health organisations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I also want this. The article went through a review process and then went live. I just posted a question about disseminating information from this campaign onto Wikipedia. Anyone may see this question here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_campaign_citations. I think that the most natural kind of partnership between an organization and Wikipedia would be in the context of any organization's existing efforts to do educational outreach, so the question I am asking may be part of the precedent for how future relationships work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Logo(s)? Give up one?[edit]

So I was bold yesterday on Wikipedia and edited en:Template:MedTalkHeader to include File:Wiki_med_logo_outline.svg thinking it was not an official logo here. It did prompt someone to comment at WikiProject Medicine, to make sure this logo wasn't a WikiProject Med logo. Is it? Can it be discontinued from use by WikiProject Med, so that it is "open" for use by any language Wikipedia Medicine WikiProject? Biosthmors (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is the official logo of Wiki Project Medicine but I am happy to have Wikipedias use it aswell.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
So Wiki Project Med has 2 "official" logos, but only one "legal" logo? Is that a fair summary? Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There are two logos - one with text and a stethoscope and one with a staff of Asclepius. The one with the text went through a community review process to be selected. I am not sure whether it ever got legally registered but it was necessary at the time because an organization was demanding a document on letterhead. The other logo with the staff is really cool and looks more like a logo.
I would support the use of this logo for any Wikipedia's WP:Wikiproject Medicine equivalent or to advertise any Wikipedia or free-access-to-information medicine outreach event done by anyone, anywhere. In answer to your question, I know nothing about the legal registration of either of these logos, but both are being used by Wiki Project Med, and grassroots community health education projects are welcome to use them to advance the wiki movement as well. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes have spoken with our lawyer and he says registering them as a trademark is no really needed. I like Blue am happy with wide usage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here are some of the basics: Legal registration isn't required. If you're not registering it, then you use ™ instead of ®. Organizations can have as many logos as they want. In fact, it is typical for a logo system to have half a dozen variants (for large vs very small ads, full color vs black-and-white line art, letterhead, etc.), and some even have a couple of different logos for the same subject. (The most famous case of dual logos may be Coca-Cola: They use both the modern, bold-faced "Coke" logo as well as the Spencerian script "Coca-Cola" (from the late 19th century) with the dynamic ribbon (introduced in the 1960s).)
The primary purpose of a logo is to let someone quickly and easily recognize "this is the Foo Company" or "this is that medical foundation". As a result of this practical issue, the only useful logo is one that is associated with "you", rather than with anyone who happens to feel like putting it on their website. "Wide usage" could mean that it is added to porn sites or posted on websites asking for "donations" (and whose owners are hoping that you won't notice that their domain name, "", is slightly, and perhaps frauduly, misspelled). You don't want that kind of brand dilution.
So if this is going to be your logo, then I think you need to make it yours, meaning that you are the people who not only own it, but also actively control it. You could authorize official partners to use it, just like the Wikimedia Foundation does with their logos, or you could take a more traditional and simpler approach of using it exclusively for yourselves (under this model, your partners can post it on pages like this that say they are your partner, but not use it for their own). You could also turn this into a seal of approval, in which you authorize its use to indicate that you think their web content is good (see, e.g., HONcode). This is a decision that your whole board should make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes so we could authorize that Medicine Wikiprojects on Wikipedia who wish can use it. Will put it to the board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I like the Asclepius logo a lot and think we should control its use. At least initially, while we think about the ramifications, I'd prefer that only this corporation uses it. We can consider sharing it with informal wikiprojects further down the track but for now I'd prefer to restrict it to this nonprofit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've replaced the Asclepius logo with over at WikiProject Medicine for now. Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Legitimacy of logos in general[edit]

A separate track of thought is the legitimacy of logos for side projects at all. I have been following this discussion for a while - it has been an issue since 2006 and lately with so much community expansion there is more discussion about this. There is new activity at Talk:Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations#Is_it_correct_that_this_is_a_community_logo.3F if anyone wants to follow the broader movement-wide discussion about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would discourage groups from creating use-restricted logos, and related overhead, unless absolutely necessary. For community projects such as ours, it is generally to everyone's benefit to share logos and imagery. Worrying about legal sidetracks or having one group ask another to stop using a logo they like (even when they created it!) has a chilling effect with immediate negative impact. In the worst case, it can result in multiple different "medicine" projects which partly defeats the purpose of coordination. The benefits to a restricted logo rarely outweigh that detriment. SJ talk  23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes agree. I am of the strong belief that the logos should be shared with the movement and that we should trust our fellow Wikipedians to use it appropriately. The WMF legal department has specifically been asking others not to use the Wikipedia logo in outreach efforts without the permission of Bence's affcom, the legal department and the board of the WMF.
There has been some criticism of our use of the Wikipedia logo on a poster for example during the 5 day outreach event we had at UCSF college of medicine. Bence and legal did not feel inclined to allow WMMED to use any of it property. As I was at that time associated with WMCA and this event was partly hosted by WMCA we used the logo through that authorization. I have been accused of being less than honest as I did this. Supposedly some feel that the national chapters are only authorized to use the logo within their juristiction. Anyway a strange situation. The WMF is trying to claim greater ownership over what we the movement have created than they should IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. I was thinking of making myself a business card with the Wikipedia logo and saying I was a Wikipedia Ambassador since that's what I am.[6][7] But I guess I'll ask for permission now, just to make sure! =) Biosthmors (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply


Originally, the notion was that this group would be called Wikimedia Medicine: WMMED. This distinguished it from the WMF and from WPMED (the Wikipedia editors' team). Now because of legal restrictions on corporate names, it is WikiProject (or is it actually Wiki Project?) Med Foundation, which suggests either the initials of WMF or WPMED or WPMF. The first two are initials already in use by closely associated but separate groups. If the legal name of the corporation is currently Wiki-space-Project Med Foundation, then I think you might have the least confusion with WPMF (and that we should move all these pages to Wiki Project Med rather than WikiProject Med). If the legal name is WikiProject Med Foundation, then I'm not sure that any simple solution exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is the legal registration, which uses the name "WIKIPROJECT MED FOUNDATION, INC." The term "medicine" was not allowed because the government restricts the use of that term to organizations which meet some healthcare requirements. The terms "Wikipedia" and "Wikimedia" were not allowed by the Affiliations Committee because those are their trademarks and they do not want the organization to use them. In later talks, the group began using the term "Wiki" to indicate that members were aligned with the Wiki Movement (including Wikipedia, but far beyond also) and "Project Med" to indicate the organization's focus. "Med" is supposed to be a legally-compliant way of indicating that members are interested in fan participation in health discussions without giving medical advice. The term "Foundation" is supposed to indicate the support that this group has for others, and that it tries to provide authoritative advice on developing health content to the extent that such advice can even be provided. The term "Inc." meant nothing to any of the members when the name was being chosen; the lawyer appended that to comply with local legal practices.
To clarify, the latest iteration of the official name is "Wiki Project Med Foundation" and people commonly call it "Wiki Project Med". It does need an abbreviation other than WMMED, which was the abbreviation made when the name of the organization was proposed as "Wikimedia Medicine". I support the use of the abbreviation WPMF and think that all existing abbreviations should be changed to this.
Thoughts? Is that clear now? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Using WPMF (with the F for Foundation) would differentiate this organization from the various WikiProject Medicine that exist across different language Wikipedias. I think that is a good thing since this organizations goals are similar but not identical. The main problem would be that some people call WMF "the Foundation" so it adds back in confusion we are trying to avoid. Personally, I think it is okay but would like to hear other opinions about if the word Foundation is too confusing in this context? FloNight (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
What about using "WPMED". I personally just think it sounds better and people are more accustomed to useing it due to the fact it is the shortcut to Wikiproject Medicine. 13:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I like that idea. In many languages the word for "medicine" begins with the sound "med" - see d:Q11190. Probably the most common abbreviation in any Wikipedia for use in making a shortcut could be something like "WP:MED". I also think this could be a good option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The group of people at the English Wikipedia ("WPMED") is technically a 100% unrelated entity. Despite the similarity in names and the presence of a few people who belong to both, the New York corporation has no formal relationship with the other group of people. For example, I am a member of the English Wikipedia's group, and I am not a member of the New York corporation. Gastel is a member of the New York corporation, but not of the English Wikipedia's group. The reason to have separate logos is because they are different groups, both in practice and in law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The project on English Wikipedia perhaps has no stated goal, but I think in intent, the two groups have the same goal, and the organization was founded to manage problems which the English Wikipedia group's members could not manage. You, WhatamIdoing, just raised the issue of logos - I am not at this point sure that the logos should be separate. There is more discussion on use of logos by unaffiliated community persons at Community Logo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The board of the New York organization is going to have to decide whether they want a logo that represents the New York organization or not, and if so, whether this logo or some other logo will be it. They will doubtless consider issues like the probability of a formal affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation, the reversibility of any affiliation (if one ever exists), and the likelihood of whether the New York organization might choose to expand beyond the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
There is an unrelated question of whether or not a logo should be made available for anyone to use for whatever purpose that person believes is appropriate over at Community Logo. That discussion really doesn't have anything to do with the New York organization's business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking WMED or WMMED standing for Wiki Medicine. Do not think we should use the same abreviation as WPMED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
WIKIMED? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

To my understanding, our operating name is Wiki Project Med Foundation, though our registered name is Wikiproject Med Foundation. I think we should choose from the acronyms: WPMED, WPMEDF, and WPMF. Ocaasi (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of those, I think WPMED is too close to w:WP:MED. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I like WIKIMED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't WIKIMED share the same problems with confusion relating to WIKIMEDia?? Ocaasi (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


Should we buy up web domains that match our new name? We already own some right now, but they use the original name we wished to incorperate under. Perhaps we can buy .org's such as "wikiprojectmed" and other varients and have them redirect to our main sight here on meta? Thoughts, questions, concerns? Peter.C (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

We will hopefully be operating under Wikimedia Medicine eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Expert involvement[edit]

I attended a symosium on Open Education on Tuesday, and gave a five-minute talk about health content on Wikipedia. I explained that because of the vigilance of a number of recent changes patrollers and others, our English health-related content is pretty reliable and stable, but it is very, very incomplete and that we really need topic experts to involve themselves here if we hope to achieve comprehensive medical coverage but there are a number of disincentives inhibiting expert engagement with the project.

  1. having to learn wiki code
  2. lack of recognition or credit for the work
  3. the article is ephemeral - any fool can change the work

However, the foundation has promised we'll have an easy editing interface by the end of this year, and the collaboration with Journal of Medical Internet Research may resolve the second and third points: the JMIR is organising peer review and publication in a dedicated journal of Wikipedia medical articles, so that main contributors can claim credit and cite the published version in their resumes, and others may cite the published diff as a reliable source with confidence (confidence commensurate with the quality of the peer-review process).

Once these disincentives have been addressed, I think we should commence an awareness and engagement campaign aimed at professional specialty organisions and medical faculties. Perhaps we could begin with one international professional association and the medical schools in one geographic region.

Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a great idea, however; I think we should do a bit more research into what medical profesionals think about Wikipedia and see if their is anything else we should improve upon specifically for them. Also, should we create a page where we can brainstorm potential affiliates? Peter.C (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree. It would be good to know how clinicians, academics and researchers relate to Wikipedia now. At Tuesday's symposium three people said that their colleagues tell students to avoid Wikipedia, but James has mentioned research that finds 50 to 70% of health care providers consult Wikipedia regularly. As for affiliates, I'd be inclined to approach the leading professional association for each field, eventually. I don't know who that would be in other specialties, but in pain science and pain management it is the International Association for the Study of Pain.
Would you be interested in championing that research project? I'm fairly sure you could get support from the grants program to fund one or two researchers for such a worthy project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would love to. I will try to work up a plan within a week.Peter.C (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I've just asked at Quora Why don't academics contribute content to Wikipedia? The first answer covers everything I've been thinking and nothing new. This is a summary of results from a 2009 survey - multiple choice, self-selected respondents - addressing academics' attitudes toward Wikipedia. Daniel is involved in Research_Committee/Areas_of_interest/Expert_involvement/2011_survey, that touches directly on these questions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Getting professional to edit is difficult. Writing for Wikipedia requires research rather than coming and adding what you "know". It also takes a great deal of time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
So we have to make it as pleasant, fulfilling and rewarding as possible for the experts. Regarding rewarding, I think the reputation of JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews will be crucial. If it cultivates a reputation for excellence, experts will want to be published there; and to achieve that the stature and rigor of the independent reviewers should be very high, so I'd favour, if it's necessary to ensure we get the best, offering significant financial inducements to the independent reviewers, at least for the first couple of years, until the journal's reputation is well established. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interested? HIV/AIDS in (sub-Saharan) African languages[edit]

HIV-AIDS project. πr2 (t • c) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Worked on improve the article in English on HIV/AIDS a while ago. It is currently in the process of being translated into 40+ languages per here [8]. Would love help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was unaware of that project. So far, I have been leaving messages like sn:User_talk:Thumani_Mabwe#.22AIDS.22_translation, ts:User_talk:Thuvack#Translation_request:_HIV.2FAIDS, and ny:User_talk:Lycaon#Important_article_request. πr2 (t • c) 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay we better co ordinate as we do not want to have the same article translated twice by different groups. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Are Kinyarwanda, Kiswahili, and Yoruba the only African languages you are translating to, other than European/Asian languages spoken in Africa (French, Arabic, English, etc.)? The Swahili and Yoruba Wikipedias both have communities to some extent, but the Rwanda Wikipedia doesn't have many active speakers. πr2 (t • c) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Would love to expand into further languages. Email me if you are interested in helping to push this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The projects scopes overlap. The tentative list of languages is at

and of articles at

Rich Farmbrough 18:02 24 March 2013 (GMT).

Wikipedia Education Program problems[edit]

Many of you know that for some years, there has been a coordinated Wikimedia community effort to do Wikimedia outreach to universities. So far, this has been an almost entirely volunteer-run project. One of the problems with managing this as a volunteer project is that there are some things that a volunteer cannot easily do, such as off-wiki communication on behalf of the Wikimedia brand. Currently some people in the education program are supportive of having a designated ombudsman or public relations person who can make official contact with people in emergencies to put out problems. I am writing now to suggest that Wiki Project Med eventually make plans to participate in whatever education programs are developed, and possibly to retain someone in collaboration with education programs who can be an official contact in case of high-profile problems.

Some of you may remember that in 2011, a professor on English language Wikipedia with a 1500 student class suggested to his students that they edit Wikipedia related to the class. See a report of this here. It was a total mess as practically all student contributions were the equivalent of vandalism. The students were not instructed in Wikipedia policy and they had no intent to engage with Wikipedia after making only a few unconsidered, spontaneous edits. The professor organizing the class defended his right to send his students to Wikipedia to do as they liked if, in his opinion, that furthered the class goals.

At Big problems with neuroscience articles, it seems that this professor again wants to follow this Wikipedia participation model. Many people in the Wikipedia community are complaining and at least one editor has become discouraged and taken a Wikibreak because of the mess that the students are making.

I am not sure what kind of response Wiki Project Med should have to this, but since this class is editing health-related articles, and since this problem could arise again in other contexts, I think that this problem is within the scope of responsibility that this organization could take. Since the solution to this problem may be someone having direct contact with the university in a community-supported manner, and since this entire issue has potential for getting off-wiki attention and thus affecting the good name of the Wikimedia community brand, I think this may be a task better appointed to a designated person rather than left to whomever may take it upon themselves to do in an unregulated, non-transparent way. There probably is no short-term solution to these kinds of problems, but in the long term, collaboration to protect health articles with regional chapters and projects such as the education program may be a role for this organization. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, as outreach coordinator ;) I'd see it within my scope to try and provide some guidance to this professor. Do we have contact info? Ocaasi (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see that it's user WoodSnake, and he's chimed in at noticeboard discussions. I'm going to follow along and possibly send him an email. Ocaasi (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
On a related note I currently in working on a proposal for specific medical research which will try to find medicine specific problems which we face. I plan to have I done by the board meeting but I am also juggling a term paper. Peter.C (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
What kind of research are you after for this proposal? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
It should be clarified that this class is not part of the official 'Wikipedia Education Program', but is rather an independent initiative by one professor. Still, we should be thinking of better ways to engage with this issues, whether they are expressed in an official program or not.--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think a better way to engage would be through revising WMF training materials (such as those at en:WP:Training) to include more of an editor viewpoint. I wager this teacher (or others) have been influenced by WMF training materials that emphasize recruitment and aren't easily modified. I think the essay en:WP:AFSE strikes a better tone. I've left comments about specific concerns I have with educational programming training language at en:WP:ENB before. I think the "expand a stub" assignment mold is harming the program and Wikipedia, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

A teacher's guide to Wikipedia's health content guidelines[edit]

This is not specifically related to the present problem with WoodSnake (though that problem may not exist if this had been in place when he first engaged with the Education Program). It seems from that discussion at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard that the online and campus-based Wikipedia ambassadors, and the induction materials, are telling the professors nothing or next-to-nothing about MEDRS. I have offered to help draft something, but won't be a bit offended if someone gets to it before me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Foundation Board elections[edit]

The deadline for candidates for the Board of Trustees, Funds Dissemination Committee, and Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson will close at 23:59 UTC on May 17, less than 48 hours from now.

Board elections
Three 2-year positions open

Candidate presentations
Questions for candidates

FDC elections
Two 2-year positions open

Candidate presentations
Questions for candidates

FDC Ombudsperson elections
One 2-year position open

Candidate presentations
Questions for candidates

Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Program-evaluation workshop[edit]

There is one day left (applications close at 12 AM PST May 17) to apply for attendance (and funding if required) at a 3-day workshop discussing assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of programs.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


Membership fees (continued)[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
James, it would be fairly easy to associate a Paypal account with wikiprojectmed(_AT_) 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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Classes of membership[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

Collecting information[edit]

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)Reply

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


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)Reply

Summing up[edit]

  • 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)Reply

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)Reply
Can you suggest some changes? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
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 [9]. 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Revised membership policy[edit]

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


Seems like more discussion is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
      I've added a 'register account' and 'provide username' point to the policy. Ocaasi (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
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)Reply
Ocaasi fixed this to my satisfaction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Second revised membership policy[edit]

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 voting 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

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.


  • 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)Reply
    • 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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I just added "Memberships are granted and withdrawn at the discretion of the WPMEDF Board". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Excellent idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Cool. I am satisfied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    Do you think Board member addresses should be public? or Just shared among the Board? Ocaasi (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
WhatamIdoing, I've replaced "city" with "General location - town, region, or country (public)" --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

I think google form is a great option. Anthony, we have wikiprojectmed(_AT_), 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 wpmedfmembers(_AT_) Ocaasi (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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

Application form[edit] Could everyone please take a look at the application form and make suggestions? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


Health presentations at Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong[edit]

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)Reply

Sue Gardner will be leaving[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Logo used[edit]

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:

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


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!

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

The name[edit]

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)Reply

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


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)Reply

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)Reply
The crux of it is that donations confer no special voting privileges. Public acknowledgement or access to Board members is within what we could do for any member so I don't view it as "special", and I do think we can offer it to donors. I updated it to say that "Donations confer no special voting privileges." Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Donors may remain anonymous if they choose to, unless their donations are earmarked for specific activities--then I think we should disclose and make sure it's mission-aligned. Donors fall under the COI policy if they are members, but donors need not be members. We shouldn't take money from someone whose mission is clearly in conflict with ours, and I think a light COI declaration for donors would be appropriate for substantial donations (over $1000 perhaps). I think the COI policy is a good place to address that. Those are my first thoughts, curious what others think... Ocaasi (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've drafted those thoughts here: Welcome to change it... Ocaasi (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I propose that this conversation be continued - or even moved - to the talk page at Talk:Wiki Project Med Foundation/Conflicts of Interest. I just commented there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia in Residence with Cochrane[edit]

The Cochrane Collaboration is looking for applicants for a Wikipedian in Residence. The expectation is that this person would work half time. That they would have a background in Wikipedia. And hopefully some in evidence based medicine. Efforts would all take place via the Internet thus no need to move. Stipend have not been clarified yet. Applications are not officially open. Hopeful start date will be Sept. Both User:Ocaasi and myself have been invited to speak at the Cochrane Colloquium in Quebec City [10] Sept 19th to 23rd, 2013. We also hope to run editing sessions for all interested and would love to have fellow Wikipedians join us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow, really interesting :-). If is possible to work via Internet, also from Italy, I'm interested --Franciaio (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Chapters Association[edit]

A group called the Wikimedia Chapters Association is still in the early stages of creating common infrastructure and a support network for Wikimedia organizations. Wiki Project Med earlier this year sent two of its members to attend their conference and to introduce ourselves.

Some people are now calling for thematic organizations to be restricted from chapter membership and to only allow Wikipedia groups which represent a geographical area. I feel that it is in the movement's interest to have one central community hub for people to talk about the community organization issues, and it should be the Wikimedia Chapters Association and all groups should be welcome here.

Because of past talk for the Wikimedia Chapters Association I assume that there remains consensus for Wiki Project Med to seek to join. Could a representative of this organization please state continued interest in joining here in the observer's section? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimania meet-up[edit]

There will be a medicine meet-up at 1:00pm (lunch) Sunday 11th. It will begin with a couple of agenda items for the board to discuss, which shouldn't take more than 10 to 20 minutes, and then open up to general discussion. I'll post the venue here on Friday or Saturday, when we've had a chance to see what's available. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply