Talk:Movement roles project/Movement Partners

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

International or national[edit]

Question about whether Affiliates or Official Partners need to be/can be international or local. To be answered. See discussion here — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bishdatta (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

status[edit]

What's the status of this? -- phoebe | talk 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same :) We might want to change the “This isn't expected to happen before the end of 2012.” ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --KuboF (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The status hasn't changed yet. That's not perfect and I agree that it should be done in a reasonable timeframe but on the other side there isn't any urgency. We just don't know if any organizations would like to be movement partners and we have not get any requests so far. Alice Wiegand (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I know one organisation which have interest 1 year ago but I recommended to wait until finalising the requirements... (more on demand via email) --KuboF (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of organizations that have expressed interest at one level or another. Musopen, for instance. And others where we already consider them something like a movement partner, but have not formalized the relationship in that way. A few of them off the top of my head, in no particular order: OSM, CC (who we support directly at times), Freenode (for which we've raised money one year), OERu/Wikieducator, Encyclopedia of Life (which synchs with Wikispecies), Mozilla, the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, the German National Library, the US National Archive, the British Library. Also for-profits: Directmedia, Pediapress, Flickr (which has some interchange with Commons), Wikia (with which we coordinate MW development), &c.
While we need to work out which of these should be partners, all are certainly eligible under the current definition; many have already gotten direct support from Wikimedians as a community and from the WMF, and some are interested in maintaining a permanent relationship. –SJ talk  01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Existing examples[edit]

This page was kind of theoretical in the past but I think two live examples of this model exist - Wiki Ed in the United States and Centre for Internet and Society in India. I added those to this page because there is some existing relationship and I think this is the best place to list those two. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizenzberechtigung[edit]

Wer ist berechtigt wie was zu machen, Da gibt es die Gnu GPL php PGP und viele mehr die meist verbreiteste ist die [[{cc. by} Creative Commons]] </ref> Syron Till (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Affiliates from WikiSoCal[edit]

  • afb.org
  • heroicimagination.org
  • San Diego GLAM Organizations
  • SoCal Nonprofits and schools
  • Latino community groups
  • Veterans groups
  • Groups for people with disabilities
  • Other volunteer groups

...(and the list goes on)

But what's the criteria for being able to describe any of these as a Movement Partner? Who decides? What would an MOU look like? Here's hoping we can move this further forward in 2017. DrMel (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding each other.!e[edit]

L Humanitaren (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movement_roles_project/Movement_Partners&oldid=16996585"