Talk:Wiki Project Med/Archives/2013

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Our COI guideline

WMF Legal has made two recommendations regarding COI:

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

This should include process for:

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

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

Note, I've begun drafting a provisional guideline here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WPMED/COI
I am not a lawyer, but I like to pretend to be one sometimes. We should have this reviewed by our Board, a real lawyer, and someone from WMF Legal. Ocaasi (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in opposition to WPMEDF drafting any policy of its own. This is something that should be initiated by nothing less than the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something for grassroots volunteers. Right now, WPMEDF has no budget, no legal expertise, and very little basis for speaking authoritatively on such things, and I think it is to this groups' advantage to continue to present itself as a grassroots organization and not an organization which creates its own legal guidelines independently. I propose that until the organization consults extensively with a lawyer who is well-versed in the nuances of Wikipedia and who intends to have a long-term relationship with the organization, our policy be as follows: "Wiki Project Med Foundation follows the conflict of interest policy recommended by the Wikimedia Foundation. Read their policy here...". To do anything other this would be to presume authority which I have seen no evidence that this organization has. I encourage members of WPMEDF to participate in Wikimedia Foundation discussions on the subject and to propose policy there. If the organization were to develop its own policy, then I think it should be done after asking the WMF for advice on developing its own policy. I assume the WMF lawyers would be happy to share their time with anyone who asked for a meeting. Also, I think it would be a good idea to inform the WMF that Wiki Project Med Foundation intends to have no policy beyond what they recommend, and that the organization tell the WMF exactly that. I do not feel that it is the responsibility of every Wikipedia community group to independently create complicated legal directives of this sort and that if it really is important to the WMF that community groups have one of these, then they will advise the community groups themselves. If WPMEDF were to simply adopt the WMF's recommendations, then that would settle this issue in the least surprising way, cost nothing, be non-controversial, and be a solid defense if something goes wrong. If the organization did write its own policy, it would surprise everyone, cost a lot in time and money, be controversial, and put the Wiki Project Med Foundation at great liability if something goes wrong. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Lane, would you read and consider the above draft I started. It indeed borrows heavily from the WMF recommendations. But we are a separate organization and we need to have our own internal procedures for dealing with these situations. Even if we primarily echo the WMF we need to codify ourselves and expand upon what that means for us, specifically, as a separate organization. We are independent from the WMF--we're not even a Thematic organization--we're a non-profit with global reach. I think it's essential that we have a policy that learns from others but stands on its own. Ocaasi (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes agree we need a COI policy of some sort. Happy to defer someone else's though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Lane, you don't seem to be getting it. The New York corporation has exactly the same authority to set its own policies that any other non-profit corporation has. The New York corporation is a 100% independent, just-as-good-as-the-next-charity legal entity, and its board has a fiduciary duty to take appropriate steps (such as setting policy) to protect the New York corporation (e.g., to protect it from a hypothetically unscrupulous future Board member). This is not just some branch of the WMF. Your board can choose in the future to become part of the WMF (if mutually agreeable), but right now, it is a totally separate entity and must take whatever steps its board believes is in the best interest of the New York corporation and its own charitable goals, no matter what some unrelated charity (like the WMF) might hypothetically prefer or not prefer.
Or, to put it another way, if you wanted to continue being just a little informal, grassroots organization with no responsibility and no need for your own policies, then you all shouldn't have incorporated. But since you did choose to incorporate, then you have all the relevant administrative hassle to deal with, which includes writing basic policies, and later reviewing them to see whether you can improve on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You might also want to consider section 3.19 of the Compass report to WMUK, which covers the best practice for good governance, admittedly substantial, charities in the UK. Rich Farmbrough 18:01 24 March 2013 (GMT).

I've made some changes to Ocaasi's draft. Mainly tailoring the language more closely to Wiki Project Med.[1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

WMMED and Wikimedia US Coalition

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

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

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

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

interest in health libraries or nursing schools

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

Yes we are more than happy to invite anyone who wishes to take an evidenced based view of health care to join us. Many of our board members are not physicians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If they are looking for a simple article-collaboration group at the English Wikipedia, then they should feel free to take over and en:WP:REVIVE the dormant en:WP:WikiProject Nursing. (Everyone welcome at WP:MED, too, of course, but the nursing group is focused on that subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
At least half of the people on this organization's board have done significant outreach in the Wikipedia Education Program. I think that there is a lot of interest within this group for supporting outreach to students at health learning institutions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, cool. Well, if any project members find themselves in the SF Bay area in August, let me know; I've got a talk slated at the nursing school. Exact date tbd. -- phoebe | talk 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phoebe, it'd be great if your reached out to Michael Turken, the 4th year medical student at UCSF. He's given talks on Wikipedia and Medicine before and is generally awesome. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Strategic planning

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

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

Sounds like a great idea that is central to the purpose and success of the organization. Should we have a meeting soon that would be soley for the purpose of discussing this? Peter.C (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should hammer out membership first. Discussion is taking place above. Than maybe we could meet and discuss both issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I always prefer to discuss things on-wiki if it's an option. It allows plenty of time to think and rethink stuff before saying it, allowing me to appear so much smarter than I really am, but mainly because it gives WhatamIdoing an opportunity to keep us in line (and others the opportunity to chime in too). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes agree with your position Anthony. As we are all in different time zone and I work all hours :-) Keeping almost everything on Wikipedia not only allows greater input but more of the board to be involved / is simpler.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


Metrics for organizational outreach

I frequently talk to organizations about developing Wikipedia articles. It often surprises Wikipedians to hear this, but a major barrier to organizational participation in Wikipedia development is that they are not convinced that the public uses Wikipedia to get health information. I assert that there should be good data about the traffic to Wikipedia health content and that a report on this would be persuasive in recruiting expert involvement from organizations which are already doing health education outreach.

I do not know the best way to go about collecting metrics. There are some bots that do metrics on all articles within a given category, but that would require putting a set of articles in a category. I just came to find out that various GLAM projects have been doing this for years - they apply hidden categories to articles, and then can track those articles thereafter. See en:Category talk:World Digital Library related for a discussion I just started about this.

Having a system for being able to report to organizations the impact of developing Wikipedia articles would be extremely useful for doing organizational outreach. I think it would be useful for this group to give their thoughts on using hidden categories in that way. If anyone can think of reasons for or against that then it would be useful to begin that discussion now because if this is a good thing to do, then I would like to start doing it. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

At en.wp, you should be able to use the WikiProject assessment tags to produce this information. The bot can go from the assessment category to the talk page to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tags affecting editing of this article

There are a bunch of strange tags in this article that makes it difficult to make changes. I have removed two in this edit [2]. I assume they relate to translation? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I asked a while back at Forum if we could have our home page translated and someone added those tags - and it's slowly being translated. I have no idea how they work, or how to add or change content without breaking things. I've added the membership application link and asked PiRSquared (who seems to know something about the process) to look it over. Once he's done that, hopefully I'll have a better understanding of how it works, and I'll explain to others here (or in an edit notice on the page itself), how to edit the page without breaking things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Donation appeal

I thought it would be a good idea to draft up a donor appeal letter for future use when we try to solicit for money. The Google Docs for it can be found here. This is of course a collaborative effort so feel free to change it in any way you please. Thoughts, questions, concerns? Peter.C (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative on this. Your letter is the first of its kind which I have seen but I have heard others discussing such things. I feel that the Wikimedia Chapters Association will take an interest in this because all chapters internationally will have to ask for something eventually, and there ought to be best practices associated with these things. Additionally, I think that the WCA would like to assist chapters by providing advice and resources for internal records keeping and reporting. Their first problem is assisting organizations in requesting funding from and reporting back to the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that record-keeping infrastructure, I think that there should be a place to record letters like this one.
I appreciate the precedent you have set in writing this. The content is fine, but besides the letter itself, I think that Wiki Project Med should track when and to whom it sends such letters, and also to maintain version control over them. It should track conversations it has with any funder, because very often donations come after a funder has thought about solicitations for years.
To improve this letter, I recommend tying it to a Google spreadsheet which also notes the version of the solicitation letter sent out, when any letter is sent, to whom it was sent, if the letter got a reply, and other such information. I am talking about this with some other organizations, particularly the Open Knowledge Foundation. I am wondering if the OKFN can help Wiki Project Med as well as the WCA to develop templates and practices for office management. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Banking - partnership with WM NYC?

At the last Wiki Project Med meeting some people were asking about banking. As of now, the organization does not have a bank account. Some people suggested that the bank ought to be in New York City, since the organization is incorporated in New York. Just last week was the Wikimedia New York City annual meeting. I talked with their treasurer Peter, en:User:Becksguy, about the issue and we thought to propose that Wikimedia NYC and Wiki Project Med might share some financial reporting organizational infrastructure. The two organizations could share a common member, which seems natural since they are based in the same place, and perhaps they could do peer review on each other.

How this could work is that Peter could join Wiki Project Med in an appropriate capacity. Being in New York, he could open and maintain the bank account on behalf of the organization just as he did and does for Wikimedia NYC. Additionally, other financial issues like grant requests written by either organization could be reviewed by both organizations, just to get other opinions from third parties. I am not sure if this means that perpetually someone from Wikimedia NYC would always need to be a member of Wiki Project Med in order to maintain the account, or if this can be a short term arrangement and that long term management of the account could be transferred outside of NYC should Peter ever decide that he no long wishes to manage it.

Might the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation be interested in having a partnership with Wikimedia NYC for the purpose of sharing work managing financial reports, banking concerns, and the collection of community feedback on funded projects? If so, I will talk to more people at Wikimedia NYC and see what they think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no benefits to "partnering" with WMNYC. If we were to use an international bank we can do business virtually anywhere instead of being limited to Capital One locations (which is what WMNYC uses). From my understanding Doug already bares this responsibility. As I do not see any benefits, I do not think we should get involved in this. Peter.C (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that you are overrating the scope of an "international" bank. For example, Citigroup would be on most people's list of such banks, but if you open an account at Citibank in the US, it doesn't do you any good in Germany, even though the logos look the same on the buildings. Your little local bank or credit union is just as "international" in practice: your bank debit card will work in many ATMs out of the country and you can wire money back and forth.
Before you decide where to open an account, ask yourself what you realistically expect to do with that account during the next year or two. If the answer is "reimburse Board members in multiple countries for postage or telephone calls", then you probably want PayPal rather than a traditional bank.
(In terms of accounting process, you need at least two people involved.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The proposed partnership would be that someone from WMNYC opens a bank account explicitly for WPMF. This account would have no ties to WM NYC except that a person from WM NYC would open and maintain it until such time as the WPFM did not need banking in NYC. I proposed this because there was a request that someone open a bank account specifically in NYC. It may be the case that the organization does not need a bank account now or if it needs one, then that account need not be in NYC. It might be the case that anyone in WPMF could open a bank account anywhere in the world and have that satisfy the organization's needs.
WPMF seems poised to process at least tens of thousands of dollars in the next year with in-kind donations. So far several members - in independent capacity - have received funding to travel to conferences relevant to WPMF. When they have gone, it was for reasons in addition to WPMF goals, but WPMF could be noting the activity of its members and take some credit for when its members go out and do things in its name. It might be prudent to note donated travel funding in the organization's records of donations, if those receiving the funding would agree that they received the money as WPMF representatives or project partners. It seems likely that the WPMF will also be supporting Wikipedians in Residence in the future, and although those people will not be paid through the WPMF, I still feel that noting that this organization was a player in the creation of the jobs would be appropriate, and the salaries paid to people who take such jobs are a sort of in-kind donation to WPMF and could be noted as such if the employee agreed. Keeping records of projects and funding is essential for other grant writing and funding requests.
It could well happen that WPMF receive funding directly to send other people to conferences or to develop materials. If that happens, it would be ideal to have a bank on hand if there are no significant additional costs to doing it sooner rather than later. I see opening a bank account somewhere in the world to be a reasonable goal of any organization which might ever solicit donations, and free accounts are available. Paypal might not be appropriate for processing travel or anyone's salary, if funding ever appeared for those things. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In-kind donations do not (cannot) use a bank account.
PayPal is probably fine for travel. (The main challenge is getting money in, not out.) If you're paying an employee, then you have so many other things to deal with that setting up a bank account will seem trivial in comparison.
Large banks almost never offer free checking accounts to organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In kind donations do not use a bank account, but the reason why the donations were in-kind is partially because the funding involved could not have been processed through WPMF. I recently traveled to a medical conference and paid a significant amount of money out of my own pocket to do so, pending reimbursement. I am fortunate that I was able to pay this and wait for the reimbursement, but suppose that someone cannot wait and does not have their own money; or otherwise suppose that WPMF found some benefit in being able to collect donations and report that other organizations funded it. It would be nice if, upon learning that a trip is funded, WPMF could front the money to the conference attendee and then wait for the sponsor to reimburse WPMF with a direct donation. This could be essential especially if someone from a developing country gets invited to a conference and for some reason is not pre-paid. Wikimania itself, for example, has a default policy of asking scholarship recipients to buy their own plane tickets and seek reimbursement later. If there is going to be money associated with WPMF projects, then there are advantages to having that money pass through WPMF. In that sense, WPMF might want to decide whether it wants to accept funding or to reject it and tell the donor to make an in-kind donation instead. In either case, I think it would be meaningful if WPMF tracked when people invested money in its projects.
I am fairly sure that there are options for free banking with a minimum balance in the range that WPMF can manage. If the organization wants to have a bank account then this and other problems can be addressed. Someone expressed a desire for banking in NYC and I am just sharing an option which will persist indefinitely. There are many other options. Paypal may be a great one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A number of banks offer no fee bank accounts. Here is one [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech projects

Wikidata:Medicine task force

At d:Wikidata:Medicine task force there is a project to create health-related infoboxes. If such boxes were centrally managed, then they could be propagated to every language's Wikipedia. What is Wiki Project Med Foundation's opinion on giving organizational endorsement to this project? It seems to me like a necessity for the future of Wikipedia and a huge relief to the members of this project in that it gets links to health content - and native language health content when available - for many languages not currently well-served. More broadly, how does WPMF feel about participating in health-related Wikidata efforts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding was that we supported any official projects on Wikis that were for the purpose of expanding medical education. I think this would be a great thing for us to have an active involvement in as it is new and has very promising prospects. Peter.C (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course we will participate :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Reliable sources for medical articles

On English Wikipedia there is a proposal to add a box to the talk pages of medical articles. This box would contain external links which run searches of the article's name on various websites. The proposal is that this box go onto every health article on Wikipedia. It is my opinion that since this is such a broad project which would affect more than 10,000 Wikipedia articles, and since this is so closely related to the work of Wiki Project Med Foundation, that this organization should review this project. If the project were proposed to go live then I think that WPMF should issue a public statement about it. See the template at en:Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. On the talk page of that template I have linked to some similar proposals in other contexts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

401(c)(3) Update

Hello all,

For the past few months I have been working Form 1023 which will give us non-profit status in the US. The main parts of the application are finished; however, I will need to collect basic information from the board members. You will all need to fill out this form which will fulfill the requirements of the fifth section.

We will also need to a) create an in depth explanation of our activities, b) finalize a COI policy that will be submitted, c) complete a projected budget sheet (it does not need to be too formal).

Also, it has come to my attention that we are unable to offer membership to our organization as it was not included in the Articles of Incorporation. We can however have a participation fee that offers similar benefits as membership would. We could potentially offer it in the future with a revision but given the additional procedures that are associated with the process of membership fees it would not be very effective to have and would serve as more of a burden.

When can we have a meeting to discuss the materials that are required of the 501(c)(3) application? Any thoughts, questions, concerns? Peter.C (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Filled out the form. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Filled out the form. Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You can have "members" without having members in that particular, technical legal sense. You seem to want a list of people who are involved and whom you listen to. Some orgs call them "volunteers" and some call them "sponsors" and some call them "advisers" and some call them by their names. You can legally call your stakeholders "members" if you want. This situation will likely have a legal effect on whether a vote of the members is binding rather than advisory, but that's about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I must say WAID it is great having you around. Always amazing advice. So we will have no technically legal members then. The WMF allows the wider community to vote on board members. So will we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
✔ --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe AffCom will be very reluctant to accept non-membership organizations as affiliates, and does not in general consider the WMF bylaws and structure to be an ideal model to be followed by affiliates. See also the Guidelines for future chapters and thematic organizations. –Bence (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Peter, can you post our Articles of Incorporation at Wiki Project Med/Articles (or point me to them if they're online somewhere else) please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Articles of Incorporation contain the addresses of all board members so for privacy concerns I will be responding to this request off-wiki. Peter.C (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to cover up that portion and post the rest.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that you want to do that. The articles are sometimes used as a kind of "identity card" for a corporation. For example, if you open a bank account, you present a copy as proof that the corporation exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2014 participation

WikiConference USA is a conference being planned for spring 2014 in New York City. The goal of the conference would be to gather Wikipedians in the United States for an annual meeting. The conference is being organized by Wikipedians in New York City and project coordinators would like for this to be the start of an annual US conference occurring in a different city every year.

I listed Wiki Project Med as a "preliminary partner", which I interpreted to mean a list of organizations whose support for the conference ought to be sought. I plan on attending this conference as a participant in Wiki Project Med and this could also be a venue for exhibiting the work of Wiki Project Med to the community in the United States. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks for signing us up! Ocaasi (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Approval of the By-Law

Have incorporated advice by our lawyer into the by-laws. It was mostly minor adjustments of wording. I would like everyone to review these changes and provide any further feedback regarding the By-Laws.

Discussion

  • Open to all. See also: Talk:Wiki Project Med/Bylaws
  • Have added a line which should allow member meetings to occur online (hopefully on meta over a week or two).[4] The one concern is that NYS law does not specifically allow this (it does not appear to specifically disallow it either however). I am amazed that NYS has not received legal rebuke from associations of deaf person as there appears to be no allowences for people with hearing problems. I think exclusively in person or teleconference meeting will restrict participation to too great an extent for an organization that is global in scope and with membership from so many countries. Also spoken communication puts non English speakers at a significant disadvantage while a written format will do so less. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If someone could fix those it would be appreciated. Which aspect of the vote system are you concerned about? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote to ratify

Note, votes for WPMEDF conducted via email or discussions on Meta are EQUAL in weight to equivalent votes in voice discussions. There should always be a written record of a formal vote, anyway. Presence in a live meeting is not a requirement to vote, and as long as summaries of meetings are properly taken, members are simply required to familiarize themselves with the meeting minutes to inform their vote. No vote can be denied because a member wasn't present for a voice meeting, and no votes made during a voice meeting can exclude those members who later timely vote based upon text summaries of the meeting, or follow-up emails.

RESTRICTED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS. VOTE OPEN UNTIL Sept 30TH, 2013

If people see typos I encourage them to fix them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary

Approval of the by-laws has passed with unanimous support of the board. Will be requesting that they be submitted to the state of New York shortly unless there are concerns raised in the next few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration Wikipedian in Residence position open

Hey folks, just an announcement that the evidence-based systematic review library, Cochrane Collaboration, has a WIR position open for applicants. Wiki Project Med Foundation is coordinating the process. Cochrane is a fantastic organization, and the position is both paid and remote. More info here: Cochrane/WIR. Check it out and sign up! Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this for the broader organization or just this particular ID group? I have noted my interest on the mainspace page, but am also wondering whether more such opportunities might open up in the future. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This is for this particular ID group, as Cochrane wants to do a pilot program. If it's successful they may add several more, and I imagine that someone who starts out and does a great job will be well positioned for any future partnerships. I'm happy to inquire now about the likelihood of that happening. Indeed, we want to build a long term relationship with Cochrane, but have to lay the groundwork one step at a time. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Where's this at? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The position is remote and online, though it may involve occasional travel. Ocaasi (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Development of existing partnership with UCSF

University of California San Francisco's medical program is continuing to develop their Wikipedia collaboration. See their report. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting all X-rays

A RfC regarding this is taking place here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

Wikimedia LGBT+
Wikimedia LGBT+ is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT+ communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework here at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

--Another Believer (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki_Project_Med/Archives/2013&oldid=8315571"