Link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Rig…
I have raised this question on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. As not
that many people watch that page, I'm flagging it on this email list,
though if you would like to join in with discussion on how GLAM group
accounts ought to be accountable, especially for GWT access, it would
probably help to respond on commons even if you want to email about it
first here. :-)
Here's the text of my post:
== Rights for GLAM group accounts ==
Hi, though on Commons we (the community) can accept group accounts
being run, my understanding is that the intention is that there must
be ''a responsible and accountable individual'' that runs the account
at the time specific edits are made. By granting significant rights to
apparent group accounts, we run a far greater risk that later
inexperienced users will inherit the account for later projects
without this being publicly declared, and without a chance for the
community to ask questions about their intentions, or to double check
whether new projects are still in-scope, or that appropriate thought
has been given to the policies that apply (such as for the best
licenses or templates to use). There is a risk that later "account
owners" will not be responsible for past projects/edits by earlier
owners; when they accept rights for the account it probably would be
beneficial to spell out that the community will expect them to remain
responsible for all edits made, and be prepared to answer questions
that arise from earlier projects.
I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking
for rights, but there appears to be no questioning before handing out
significant rights as to how they will be managed by the institution
long term. If the intended projects are time-limited (as GWT uploads
have invariably been in the past), then I see no harm in encouraging a
''project'' based name, or even better ''project manager +
project
name'' account in preference to a permanent and open-ended institution
account. This way if later projects pop up, the institution
representative or new project managers need only ask for further
accounts to have similar rights on the same basis as the original
request.
(Tangent) It is worth considering that our norm for being tolerant of
anonymity is rarely an issue for official representatives of
institutions and may even be confusing or detrimental if issues arise
with edits from such accounts.
Thanks
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae