Pine, I think you raise some important questions below. Obviously there has been a lot going on in the last week, so I'd like to give this a "bump" and add a couple points: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, ENWP Pine <deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com> wrote: I am not up to date on how often the WMF funds pass-through projects that include Wikipedian-in-Residence-like roles. But to whatever extent it does, I absolutely agree with Pine -- applying a litmus test of whether article writing is a core focus would be an inappropriate oversimplification of a complex subject. There are certainly cases where roles that are centrally focused on article writing could strongly advance to the Wikimedia mission. (In case anybody is surprised to hear me say this -- the concerns I voiced about the paid editing aspect of the Belfer Center project were very much based in the specifics of that case.) I think carefully managed article writing can be done successfully by Excellent example. There are of course ways such a project could be designed that would be problematic -- for instance, insufficient disclosure, or a bullish attitude in adding controversial points -- but under the guidance of Wikimedia DC, whose board and staff include many longtime Wikipedians, I would have a high degree of confidence they would avoid such problems. Thank you, glad you liked that :) Agreed. I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated thread on this email list, Executive Director Sue Gardner recently said: "Editorial policies [for WMF staff] are developed, and therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the community." [1] That is the WMF policy as it applies to WMF staff: essentially, no special rules, use your own judgment in interpreting how to best comply with community standards. But here, in the report Sue authored, it seems there is a very different standard for movement partners who seek funding or endorsement from the WMF: "In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process." [2] Again: this is not a direct contradiction, and it is entirely within the rights of the WMF to apply different standards to its own staff vs. to other organizations. But I do think it deserves some careful consideration, as to *why* such different standards would be appropriate. Decision point #1 in the Belfer Center report is not something that is based in any Wikipedia policy. It does have a basis in the Wikipedian in Residence page on the Outreach Wiki.[3] That is an important page, and I believe many in the movement consider it to have the weight of a formal policy; but I don't. Elevating it from a best practice recommendation to an absolute rule is a significant step, and one that I don't believe should be taken lightly. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/071161.html [2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_Univers… [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence#Core_characteri…