I agree that responses should be public (with specific fields, i.e., audience size) hidden. I suggest linking to the responses on https://make.wordpress.org/media-corps/handbook/#media-partners-criteria below the call for responses.

I would just suggest that any contact information, if collected even inadvertently, also be considered private or available by request only.

And I would ask that whereever the list is published, that it include at least some terms or disclaimer text limiting the use of the list. As a media partner I'm interested in activity from the WordPress project but not so much getting added to mailing lists for private companies in the WP space.

I agree that responses should be public (with specific fields, i.e., audience size) hidden. I suggest linking to the responses on https://make.wordpress.org/media-corps/handbook/#media-partners-criteria below the call for responses.

Yes, embed the aggregate results and just hide the pertinent columns with contact information. 👍

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with all the feedback so far and don't think including any contact info is necessary.

And I would ask that whereever the list is published, that it include at least some terms or disclaimer text limiting the use of the list. As a media partner I'm interested in activity from the WordPress project but not so much getting added to mailing lists for private companies in the WP space.

This also seems reasonable to me. We can include a brief statement to clarify the purpose of sharing this public information and address any potential misuse.

I agree that responses should be public (with specific fields, i.e., audience size) hidden. I suggest linking to the responses on https://make.wordpress.org/media-corps/handbook/#media-partners-criteria below the call for responses.

+1

Thank you, everyone. What do you think of the following copy to share in the Media Corps handbook? Does it capture the feedback provided here accurately? The link to the spreadsheet is missing since we still need to hide the pertinent fields.

You can find the list of Media Corps partners and their self-assessment form responses in this spreadsheet (excluding some specific fields hidden to respect the privacy of media partners).

Please note: The information shared in the linked spreadsheet is intended solely to facilitate collaboration and transparency within the Media Corps project. It is not to be used for unsolicited marketing purposes. If you see any misuse of this information, please report it in the Media Corps Slack channel so it can be addressed accordingly.

I am closing this issue as the handbook has already been updated with a link to the self-assessment responses. Thanks everyone for your feedback!

As a separate note, just for context, the team has not been classifying sites or responses received through the self-assessment form. Instead, the primary focus these months has been on learning and better understanding 1) the different folks or outlets interested in participating, 2) their content focuses and if/how the Media Corps briefings can support them, and 3) the overall level of engagement/participation, among other things.

I'm currently working on a mid-project update post to share some stats and observations from the Media Corps efforts so far. I hope to publish it in the Media Corps blog by the end of this week to help gather further feedback.