My point was more that these are ethically movement funds rather than WMF funds. Yes I realize that legally the matter differs. The Signpost produces reviews of issues of interest to Wikimedias rather than forward facing content for our readers. I do not see it as different than funding the WMF blog.
James On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that WMF project grants would be a suitable funding source > for *Signpost *work, for multiple reasons. I consider the *Signpost *to be > "content", and WMF shouldn't fund content if it wants to maintain its > immunity to lawsuits regarding user-contributed content. Also, there would > be a conflict of interest between the journalistic role of the *Signpost > *and > the WMF; the *Signpost *should have significant financial, legal, and > managerial independence from WMF. > > Project grants could be a good source of funding for some work that > addresses COI, although I think it would be good to keep in mind that WMF > shouldn't be creating (or editing) content directly. I would be wary of > using WMF funds to pay people to decide whether or not certain edits are > appropriate. I think that training materials, and software tools to detect > edits that look promotional or controversial, could be developed with WMF > funds. I'd want someone who isn't reporting to WMF to make the decisions > about the appropriateness of edits that are flagged for review (whether > flagged by humans or technical tools, and whether or not self-reported by > COI editors who request review). If a process leads to a community (i.e. > not WMF and not COI editor) decision that edits are incompatible with > community policies and norms, then at that point the matter could be (1) > addressed directly by the reviewer such as by declining a proposed edit or > reverting an edit, (2) referred to site administrators for community > interventions such as warnings or blocks, and/or (3) referred to WMF for > legal action using WMF resources. That's a long way of saying that I think > that there are important technical and legal roles that WMF can have in > helping to identify and deter COI editing, but WMF's roles should be be > carefully separated from and in alignment with the community's roles. > > Pine > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
