- 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". :)
English Wikipedia is actively discussing the alleged COI created by a series of poorly-documented partnerships. The community expects full transparency for all of its partnerships in order to better coordinate the Chapters, the language-specific projects and the partnerships. This is all the more necessary if decision-making becomes more diverse and the number of partnerships increase beyond what one or two WMF Staff members can hold in their own memory.
A) At a minimum, each partnership should sign a written partnership agreement, and a PDF of that agreement should be available to the community via a link in the database.
B) The names and contact information for the main contact person for each side of the partnerships.
C) A full financial disclosure of how much funds are commited, if any, from each side of the partnership. (I.e., Museum X will spend $X per year on salaries, travel and other costs)
D) Are there any unusual restrictions on the editorial independence of the partnership participants? (e.g., employees of Partner will not edit main space pages)
E) How will the success of the project be evaluated and by whom? Links to progress reports and any final evaluation should be in the database.
In this manner, any member of the community is free to evaluate the success and track record of related partnerships. Informed decisions can be made as to whether to expand an existing partnership or form a related, separate partnership.
Through complete transparency and disclose, Conflicts of interest and the track record of partnership leaders can be assessed.
A second, related database should be created as a "job clearinghouse" for hiring partnership staff or Wikipedians-in-Residence. In order to avoid allegations of discriminatory selection processes, each opportunity should be posted on a central list of available positions so that candidates outside of the "old boys' network" can receive fair consideration. After filling the position, the number of candidates considered and the numbered hired can be then entered into the central database, possibly with certain identity characteristics. Each year, the WMF should summarize the data (e.g., We considered 3,000 unique job applicants, of which 34% were Hispanic, and we filled 30 positions with 15% Hispanic, etc.)
This recommendation also relates to the Capacity Building and Roles Working Groups because the movement needs to professionalize its side of its partnerships and needs a central group to take ownership of the partnership process even of the partnerships that are driven by individual chapters. The trademarks and reputation of the movement and of the WMF are at stake in every partnership we establish. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)