On 04/04/2014, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Just a quick correction, you say that "Even a paid researcher on a university project would not meet this definition, unless the project were part funded or in partnership with Wikimedia. "
This is not quite accurate: even a student on a university project would meet this definition if his university had:
- Signed a quick
licencehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark/License/GLAM (an agreement between the University and the WMF)
I cannot imaging a project needing such agreements in place if it were not relevant. If the agreements applied to the specific activities of a student, then they are being funded to take part on a Wikimedia related project. I can think of no other reasons as to why the student would be using Wikimedia trademarks.
- Paid for the student's scholarship (a contracted payment from the
University to the student)
An unrestricted university scholarship unconnected to any Wikimedia project outcomes is not being part funded by Wikimedia. I cannot imagine any circumstances where this would be relevant. If the student were taking part in Wikimedia projects, the normal COI policy applies when writing about their department, research or institution.
This would apply under the current definition *even if* *the student's studies are entirely unrelated to Wikimedia.* This is because the student would be a "contractor" of an "organizations having [an agreement] with Wikimedia".
No, for the reasons above. This is trying to drive a wedge into basic partnership agreements with universities which would have nothing whatsoever to do with students receiving scholarships. It is well outside of any common-sense interpretation. As I read it, this is covered in the definition, however if you have a specific proposal to simplify the definition I would welcome it.
It could easily be read that a 'paid volunteer':
- "Has to be an employee, contractor or part time contractor of [anyone
who has signed any agreement with any Wikimedia organisation or person describing themselves as part of Wikimedia].
- Has to [contribute to Wikimedia, but not necessarily edit].
- This includes [anyone whose employer benefits from Wikimedia in any
way]."
I know that this seems hysterical, but experience has shown that we need to define these things accurately, and the definition is much too broad at present. It has the effect of including all employees and contractors (even unpaid) of all organisations which have ever so much as signed a single page agreement with anyone from "Wikimedia". We have to ask:
- How are we defining "Wikimedia"? Does it include, say, user groups?
Could it include single persons in some cases?
Yes, if a user group agreement is in place.
- Why are we including people who are not actually paid to edit the
projects, but might be paid to, for example, mine coal - but edit the projects when they get home?
I do not understand this example. The WMF does not employ coal miners.
If you mean someone like Garfield (CFO of the WMF) as he is not paid to edit projects, or to develop the software that supports the projects, then yes, I would expect Garfield to be transparent. For example if he were anonymously !voting in a community discussion about the future of Wikimedia Commons, then he should make it clear that he is employed by the WMF.
- Does this include organisations where there is an "unwritten
agreement"? What about a draft agreement?
No. I would expect the norms for conflict of interest to apply rather than this procedure.
Fae