- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
My main complaint about this recommendation is that it does not reflect on how partnerships work in the open & free movement. When a museum wants to cooperate with us on Wikipedia content, that partnership typically does not start with us approaching them and convincing them of the merits of Wikipedia; it starts with us putting out our content in the open, free for everyone to use, and make it accessible to everyone, not just some narrow predefined partnership audience. Potential partners (some predictable, some unexpected) then find it useful, start using it and eventually see benefit in enhancing it in a more targeted way via a partnership.
The same "making it accessible for everyone" step largely doesn't happen for our technology, which limits what future partnerships can happen. The software we produce is hard for third parties to use, our APIs are not user-friendly, our external tools tend to be very hard to discover for non-Wikimedian audiences. This is IMO a gap in technical partnership strategy that the 2030 plan should address. --Tgr (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"Development, Research, Investment and Improvement of existing tools to help organize content creation by the professional network partners" is really ambiguous. Are the partners doing the developing/research/investment/improvement or the content creation? --Yair rand (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan SalonEdit
We don't reinvent the wheel. Shared vision means understanding online community (...)