Return to article

Proposal talk:Affiliated organisations

Revision as of 12:23, 3 December 2012 by Gnangarra (talk | contribs) (→‎content creation funding: comment)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

kick off

I'm just kicking off the talk page, and adding to my watchlist. I have half an idea to make some fairly major edits, really as part of a process to try and help me gain further understanding about the form and nature of the ideas - obviously it's all just one revert away, and as things come up I'll explain my rationale here :-) cheers, Privatemusings 21:10, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Go for it. John Vandenberg 21:37, 16 November 2010 (EST)

content creation funding

I divided the image value by 5 to bring it into line with the photographic equipment grants. Provocative I know, but that's probably a discussion worth having? --99of9 20:56, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Your opinion on valued/featured images is welcomed. My thinking was that affiliated organisations can provide consistent levels of content creation year after year, the bar can be set lower to promote this relationship. The goal of this proposal is to recognise that an affiliated organisation is a stronger bond that an unidentified person. John Vandenberg 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EST)
Affiliate organistions cant get QI recognition on Commons as thats restricted to works uploaded by the author. It'd be upload and FP only even then organisations could also encourage vote stacking to ensure funding. Funding assitance for images being uploaded is ok though $1 for stuff they didnt create isnt fair to our members as it devalues those that go and get whats needed. No issue with funding GA or FA works as those processes have specific requirements rather than the pure voting of FP's Gnangarra 23:23, 3 December 2012 (EST)