Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One does not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws however this will be clearly described in the policies once incorporated.
James Heilman, 14/10/2012 22:18:
Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One does not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws [...]
Actually, chapters do and very clearly, as a general rule.
Nemo
On Oct 15, 2012 3:36 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
James Heilman, 14/10/2012 22:18:
Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One
does
not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws [...]
Actually, chapters do and very clearly, as a general rule.
Aye. This is done to ensure the chapter cant legally exert influence over content or the community, but also to help shield the chapter from lawsuits about content.
A medicine org needs to be very clear about this, as lawsuits for incorrect medical information will be very expensive.
-- John Vandenberg
2012/10/14 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One does not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws however this will be clearly described in the policies once incorporated.
Authority - none - but as the main goal of chapters is just to support Wikimedia projects and communities as a whole rather without any direct influence over project's content or rules of the projects, thematic associations are clearly about the content of projects as such. If Wikimedia Medicine activity had no any impact over medical content of Wikipedias there would not have any sense to have such organization :-)
I think it is nothing wrong with it, I rather see great opportunity here - for example in bringing more professionals to edit Wikipedias and - maybe - be able to successfully apply for scientific grants from relevant governmental and private sources...
Tomasz Ganicz, 14/10/2012 22:36:
2012/10/14 James Heilman:
Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One does not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws however this will be clearly described in the policies once incorporated.
Authority - none - but as the main goal of chapters is just to support Wikimedia projects and communities as a whole rather without any direct influence over project's content or rules of the projects, thematic associations are clearly about the content of projects as such. If Wikimedia Medicine activity had no any impact over medical content of Wikipedias there would not have any sense to have such organization :-)
By the way that's also the point of the discussion on en.wiki mentioned by Bence.[1] (Again, I'm just taking this as an example.) This is exactly why thematic organisations need not a less clear, but a more clear, general rule/line of demarcation than chapters. Now that I think of it, you'll also need something about the visibility you can get on Wikimedia projects: sitenotices, notices of all sort, even just templates "this article/whatever was supported/provided/rubberstamped by entity X" tend to be subject to controversies. ChapCom/AffCom will know better and you can build on years of experience of chapters. ;-)
Nemo
[1] Permanent link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=516388768#arbitrary_break_2
Where doubts like «it will become a meta-arbitration committee for medical issues» are raised.
2012/10/14 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
Tomasz Ganicz, 14/10/2012 22:36:
2012/10/14 James Heilman:
Thematic organizations have the same amount of authority over content on Wikipedia as chapters. To spell this out clearly that means NONE. One does not put these sorts of details in a NGOs by laws however this will be clearly described in the policies once incorporated.
Authority - none - but as the main goal of chapters is just to support Wikimedia projects and communities as a whole rather without any direct influence over project's content or rules of the projects, thematic associations are clearly about the content of projects as such. If Wikimedia Medicine activity had no any impact over medical content of Wikipedias there would not have any sense to have such organization :-)
By the way that's also the point of the discussion on en.wiki mentioned by Bence.[1] (Again, I'm just taking this as an example.) This is exactly why thematic organisations need not a less clear, but a more clear, general rule/line of demarcation than chapters. Now that I think of it, you'll also need something about the visibility you can get on Wikimedia projects: sitenotices, notices of all sort, even just templates "this article/whatever was supported/provided/rubberstamped by entity X" tend to be subject to controversies. ChapCom/AffCom will know better and you can build on years of experience of chapters. ;-)
I guess there is a danger that in due time, someone may apply to create "Wikimedia Alternative Medicine Association" or "Wikimedia Traditional Chineese Medicine Association" if the Wikimedia Medicine would decide to advocate for scientific POV in medical content in Wikipedia... And the medicine is not that controversial issue - but take into consideration that there is already a proposal for:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT
so we can expect, just for the sake of keeping a balance of neutrality of the Wikimedia establishement of "Wikimedia Heterosexual Association". Then someone may create some day "Wikimedia Roman Catholic Association" and then for the balance also "Wikimedia Protestant Association"...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org