CZ Talk:Topic Partners: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>DavidGoodman (disclosure) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
You're absolutely right to be concerned about this, and it's a concern that any complete Topic Partners Program proposal must take into account. The basic principle I want to establish is that any funding partner must leave it up to CZ itself to decide who will be the beneficiaries of the funds--and that processes and oversight will be in place to make sure that these funds are disbursed on the basis of qualification and merit, not based on relationships with the funders. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:38, 14 May 2007 (CDT) | You're absolutely right to be concerned about this, and it's a concern that any complete Topic Partners Program proposal must take into account. The basic principle I want to establish is that any funding partner must leave it up to CZ itself to decide who will be the beneficiaries of the funds--and that processes and oversight will be in place to make sure that these funds are disbursed on the basis of qualification and merit, not based on relationships with the funders. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:38, 14 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::As a minimum, the full terms of the agreement would have to be posted, and declared on each relevant article. Any respectable professional publisher nowadays requires that. For example, we might accept money from a pharmaceutical company to develop the medicine pages, and it would be known as the sponsor, but we would not under any conditions accept money for articles on one or all of its products--or, I would suggest, in any particular medical field that might be of special interest to it. As a positive example, the "Merck Manual" does not lose stature because sponsored by Merck, but it covers all of internal medicine. | |||
::I would further much rather see the funds used to develop our facilities and pay our general staff, than to pay editors on particular topics. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 01:41, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:41, 15 May 2007
While I like the idea of the Topic Partners, I am concerned that such partnerships may make objectivity difficult. Partners funding certain topics can potentially lead to the criticism that Citizendium information is up for sale and that Citizendium will shill for whichever company, organization, group, or entity will pay the right price.
Just a thought to consider.
Joe Grieboski
You're absolutely right to be concerned about this, and it's a concern that any complete Topic Partners Program proposal must take into account. The basic principle I want to establish is that any funding partner must leave it up to CZ itself to decide who will be the beneficiaries of the funds--and that processes and oversight will be in place to make sure that these funds are disbursed on the basis of qualification and merit, not based on relationships with the funders. --Larry Sanger 18:38, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
- As a minimum, the full terms of the agreement would have to be posted, and declared on each relevant article. Any respectable professional publisher nowadays requires that. For example, we might accept money from a pharmaceutical company to develop the medicine pages, and it would be known as the sponsor, but we would not under any conditions accept money for articles on one or all of its products--or, I would suggest, in any particular medical field that might be of special interest to it. As a positive example, the "Merck Manual" does not lose stature because sponsored by Merck, but it covers all of internal medicine.
- I would further much rather see the funds used to develop our facilities and pay our general staff, than to pay editors on particular topics. DavidGoodman 01:41, 15 May 2007 (CDT)