Talk:Wikimedia Foundation partnership reflections

Is this intended to be maximally accessible to non-native English speakers?

If so, try to keep the jargon to a minimum. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, Thanks for your two inline notes of where the text was unclear! In reply to your question above, I think the document was designed to be maximally comprehensive and accurate in reflecting what we've learned and how we approach partnerships. We'd be more than happy to do a copyedit pass to adjust words or phrasings and define or replace what comes across to you as jargon. Would you be interested in compiling a list of example issues or suggested changes? Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I will leave inline comments, as that will be the simplest way of identifying the possible issues, and suggesting alternatives. As a native English speaker from another country I expect to miss some that seem normal to me. I leave those to others to point out.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Movement partners

How does the existing Movement roles project/Movement Partners role play into this? How correct would it be to add that sort of relationship to this page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Although Movement Partners is an evolving concept yet to be formalized, I think it's consistent with the document insofar as movement partners would be a type of affiliate. I don't think the particular designation would change the general framework for thinking about how or with whom we partner. It may introduce some nuance to the ways in which we codify partnerships or when we officially "co-brand" initiatives. I think those are interesting questions that could be woven into this guidance once we have experience working with such entities. After all, this is a document of reflections not policies or prescriptions. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved.

Excellent response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Divisions of the Wikimedia Foundation as partners

Wikipedia Zero and he Wikipedia Library are presented here as partnerships of the WMF, instead of as staff projects at the WMF. Is anyone aware of discussion of spinning these projects off as independent organizations? Can the WMF have a partnership with an internal project? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Zero and the Wikipedia Library are presented here as examples of WMF initiatives that involve seeking outside partnerships with external organizations, mobile telecom providers and scholarly publishers, respectively. So, they are not being referenced as partnerships intra-WMF. Whether one of these could spin off as independent organizations is a completely separate question, and I don't think we have any plans on either front. That said, we have seen spinoffs such as Wiki Ed, so it seems conceivable that the Foundation may create a partnerships-focused initiative that grows to seek independence. It would then become a partnerships program in itself, that is also partnered with the Foundation. Partnerception! Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved.

Excellent response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sharing partnership infrastructure

I appreciate that the WMF has shared the Partnerships & Resource Development/Drafting a Memorandum of Understanding as a tool to assist Wikimedia chapters in developing their own partnerships.

To what extent is it a goal of the WMF partner reflections project to create infrastructure which chapters can use to develop their own projects? Is this project mostly about the WMF being transparent, or is this about broader community practice of developing partnerships at any level, including for example the relationship between Wikimedia chapters and local nonprofit organizations? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We're working on many fronts to advance partnerships, but this document is primarily about the Wikimedia Foundation being transparent about its own practices. It would be a secondary benefit if that catalyzes broader community partnerships. Other efforts to create infrastructure and resources useful to others forming partherships continue, but are largely distinct from this document. Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved.

Excellent response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Guide to content partnerships

Did you consider this page? --Nemo 22:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Added to the resources section, thanks! Done Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)