Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Passing of User:Filceolaire
That *is* sad news. I believe I only met Filceolaire once or twice at meet-ups, but he left an impression, and I remembered his name. I Googled him to make sure I was matching the right face to the name, and stumbled across his YouTube account. It said this was the last video he liked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtJPuu5TE3E It's kind of a Wikipedian's video, celebrating knowledge. It seemed to fit the man, and what he was about – and perhaps, alongside all his contributions to the wiki, a good way to remember him. Condolences to his friends and family. Andreas On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Richard Nevell < richard.nev...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We've been given the sad news that Filceolaire passed away recently, > confirmed by his family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filceolaire > > He's been a familiar face around Wikipedia for many years and we send our > condolences to those who knew him. > > Richard Nevell > > -- > Richard Nevell > Project Coordinator > Wikimedia UK > +44 (0) 20 7065 0921 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Andreas, Yes, of course. The delay has basically been down to the risk of patent litigation. At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents. We do not believe this is the case and do not believe the probability of being involved in actual litigation is high. However if it did happen it could be very costly. So we have been taking advice on how to deal with this risk, and have reached a solution which will work. Roger and Terence have been very patiently waiting for this to be sorted out - apologies to them, and everyone else waiting for an outcome, for the delay. Chris Thanks, Chris. A. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
Chris, It is now almost four months since you posted the below. According to whois, the domain transfers have not happened. http://whois.domaintools.com/qrwp.org http://whois.domaintools.com/qrpedia.org Could you give us an update? Andreas On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Chris Keating chris.keat...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Dear all, I am pleased to announce that Wikimedia UK has reached an agreement with Roger Bamkin and Terence Eden regarding the ownership of QRpedia. The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.orgdomains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK, which will maintain and support the development of the QRpedia platform for the future. Roger and Terence will act as honorary advisors to Wikimedia UK in this, as well as retaining their moral rights of attribution, but will not receive any financial consideration for this. I am very pleased we have reached an agreement. I look forward to Wikimedia UK working to support QRpedia's future development. This includes defining our future involvement with the MonmouthpediA and GibraltarpediA projects. A fuller statement will follow. Regards, Chris Keating -- Chris Keating Chair, Wikimedia UK @chriskeating chris.keat...@wikimedia.org.uk Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company registered in England and Wales. Registered Company No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Thanks, Stevie. Andreas On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello everyone, Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my lack of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and working may have led to it being my last, I hope you'll forgive me. - Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publications using a logo to illustrate a story about an organisation is totally sensible and reasonable. - Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. - Sister charity - I have no problems with the description of WMF and WMUK as sister organisations really. It makes sense to the audience they are writing for. - Who got in touch with the publications? - I confirm that I contacted both Third Sector and Civil Society directly. It was nothing to do with Andreas, or anyone else for that matter. I liaised very closely with the team in San Francisco until very late on Wednesday to get this sorted. They suggested that we give a heads-up on the story to a publication or two that we've dealt with in the past. I didn't provide them any copy, simply advised that the announcement was due. The journalists had covered the story before. This is fairly standard practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the press use over-dramatic language and we have to live with that. As our relationships with the press improve, and they have more positive stories to cover, the default narrative will become repositioned. This will take time. I hope this answers the questions from earlier in the thread. Please do let me know if there's anything I've missed and I'll do my best to provide any answers or clarity. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 9 February 2013 21:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. To clarify: User:Jayen466 is Andreas Kolbe, who is a Wikipedian in good standing. That article is a draft that may or may not be in the Signpost in Monday. Andreas is also an associate of Wikipediocracy, a website that hosts contributions by people I wouldn't willingly be seen dead with. On the other hand Andreas comes to some Cambridge meetups, and is welcome to do so, and I have been in the pub with him afterwards. DG seems to do the guilt for association thing to excess, whatever irritation events in 2012 have caused WMUK and its trustees. Steve Virgin and other Board members from 2010 do bear some collective responsibility for the subsequent governance, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see some humility from them. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia. Beyond that, I believe it would also be extremely unwise for WMUK to offer such support. Andreas On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote: I don't want to set the cat among the pigeons, but does this mean that WMUK can now support GibraltarpediA? I perfectly understand that things are a bit more complicated when it comes to money and formal agreements, but after the wonderful success in Monmouth, it would be a shame if the excellent work going on in Gibraltar continued to be overshadowed by the controversies about conflicts of interest and ownership of QRpedia. I think WMUK could do quite a bit to be seen to be supportive, and I think recognition of the project from formal entities within the movement (such as chapters) can go a long way towards changing the default narrative (to pinch Stevie's phrase). All that said, I'm very pleased to see that this has finally been resolved and (it seems) with a minimum of acrimony. Hopefully all those involved will be happy with what they have contributed to the Wikimedia movement and will continue their involvement with it for a long time to come. Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell -- *From:* John Byrne j...@bodkinprints.co.uk *To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Monday, 11 February 2013, 16:37 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia What we had is best described as a delay in agreeing terms for the donation or similar. John On 11/02/2013 14:03, wikimediauk-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:39 + From: Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: CACti2rKAKugc3dnTC1k+xj+ l8dv9ugbijybubfhs-goudtl...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 This is something I'm liaising on with the WMF. The original copy was put together jointly between WMF and WMUK and I'm keen that any revisions are accepted by both sides. I'm hopeful that we can get this fixed today. Thanks, Stevie On 9 February 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 17:10, Chris Keatingchris.keat...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.org domains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK It would be a good idea to update http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/02/questions-and-answers-related-to-the-governance-review/ ASAP (which I appreciate might mean Monday) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
Thomas, I don't think there is much wrong with projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia at all. When I first heard about Monmouthpedia, I thought it was a great project. Problems arose from – 1. the conflation of roles within the chapter, 2. the projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in the press, and 3. the use of the Wikipedia main page to increase project and customer visibility. I see a PR, credibility and integrity problem for the Wikimedia movement if such projects are prominently sold by Wikimedia as marketing projects designed to increase tourism – because this means we are saying it is fine to leverage Wikipedia to boost local business. Similarly, I don't think it is wise to leverage the main page to enhance such projects' visibility, or for Wikimedia UK to endorse any such use of the main page. Commercial interests should be kept at arm's length from WMF and the chapter, and from the Wikipedia identity. I don't want to see the Wikipedia main page play host to all manner of hidden commercial interests, especially when the commercial background is not transparent to the average reader. In relation to the lack of transparency, there is also a potential legal problem here under EU legislation, as described in the Signpost a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes In my view, Wikimedia should support such projects as outreach efforts, to get people involved in writing content, but not as marketing ploys. In terms of content generation, and getting people involved in Wikipedia, these are good projects, and to that degree I support them. Best, Andreas On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia. What do you count as projects like Gibraltarpedia? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
Sometimes I wonder what happened, David. I recall you describing one of my posts to Foundation-l as the post of the year a couple of years ago: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/216365#216365 What I am opposed to is poor content, BLP violations, or Wikipedia being abused for commercial and political interests. That applied then, and it applies now. I don't think the average Wikipedian would have that much of a problem with that. Andreas On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 February 2013 12:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia. What do you count as projects like Gibraltarpedia? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to? It is important to remember that Andreas is opposed to Wikipedia in general and to chapters doing anything. (Assume good faith does not mean in the face of mountains of evidence and the subject's own words.) - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Press coverage: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1170282/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/ http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Not from me, if that is what you are implying. I have not been in touch with either publication. As for the Signpost piece, it is a fair summary of what they wrote, which is the Signpost's job to deliver. Andreas On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)
I would suggest that real-world discussions like this do not benefit *at all* from quoting *editing* principles like Assume Good Faith. It's weird and cultish. Besides, it is irrelevant. Good faith has nothing to do with accuracy of judgment, or objective morality. Andreas On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, fab...@unpopular.org.uk wrote: Hi Tom, I think it is more a matter of what standards we (as the membership) should expect from a) the board and b) WMUK the firm (which is undoubtedly what it is). I value you your contributions because you are always pushing us (the membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying. You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate. Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met. all the best Fabian (User:Leutha) Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 + From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: caltqccdx7o8geapatsvt+vn3jblukboehkjkimwe3grkvwh...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't need any more response than we're looking at it and are beginning discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few weeks. You could have written that months ago. Last time you used the we need to prepare a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Tom, It might be sensible to check with us directly before posting. We * have* been preparing but need to get a lot of consensus even for a 'short response'. I think your email was unfair to Chris and a little rude. Please assume good faith. Phone me if you want more background. Jon On 6 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published promptly (not necessarily immediately) when we get it. Why won't you publish it immeadiately? So that we have a chance to prepare responses for any media inquiries that might result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote: Tom, I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I mostly agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report published sooner rather than later because even if it is absolutely damning, it is in the charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to be addressing the issues raised in it. However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being reported on. Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than the actions you are complaining about. Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell Speaking just for myself, I was actually enjoying Thomas' posts, rather than resenting them filling up my inbox. Yours, on the other hand, I did resent: for its glib pomposity. Regards, Andreas -- *From:* Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses. Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an excuse is an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or negative judgment. In a statement of the form We are (not) doing X because of Y we call Y an excuse. As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review with the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This response needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us. As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response. The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves? One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You say co-commissioned a report into your own failings. This is inaccurate as there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at. Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is disingenuous. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Where are we with QRpedia?
There is an article on Wales Online today, Wikipedia: How a project launched in Monmouth has gone global, that requires some corrections. ---o0o--- Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia. Read more: Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/need-to-read/2013/01/31/wikipedia-how-a-project-launched-in-monmouth-has-gone-global-91466-32713327/#ixzz2JXIb7GFQ ---o0o--- Andreas On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.comwrote: Jon It does seem extraordinary that nobody seems able to write out a summary of what these arguments are. We are not asking for this information because we think it will lead to an acceptable agreement more quickly; we are asking because we want to know what is being done on our behalf. Joe On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.comwrote: On 21/01/13 17:10, Jon Davies wrote: However I do not think an acceptable agreement will come any more quickly if we rehearse the many and complicated arguments on this list. How did we get get here then? Gordo __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 16 November 2012 08:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS. Your reply here is what I call the insider fallacy. Because we are wikipedians we consider Wikipedia and the mission the most important thing. It is not so much a fallacy as integral to the definition of conflict of interest we use. Which, as Andy was pointing out, is actually more permissive than it might be. That is because it allows us to distinguish between potential conflict of interest and actually not being able to hack it with NPOV. An article subject justifiably doesn't care about that compared to his reputation. Now of course I agree a PR company is not necessairuly altruistic in the sense of protecting a clients reputation. They are paid after all, and the more positive the coverage the better their payout! But people DO hire PR firms to handle genuine issues with their biographies, and we currently treat those people badly. Those of use who contributed to the draft CIPR guide are aware of the need to improve the relationship. On the other hand I don't think your stance here really holds water. If a PR firm promises a client that it will do something that is outside the recognised way of editing WP for PR pros, it is not behaving properly. If it invoices a client for a service and the service has not been carried out properly, it is treating the client badly. Particularly if anyone working for a PR firm indulges in misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity (see terms of use at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities ) to get under our radar, they are behaving in a markedly unprofessional fashion. I mentioned lawyers for a couple of reasons. They are not going to throw up their hands at procedures, and likewise are not going to promise clients that something can be done quickly unless it can be. Also they will be trained (by moots etc.) to see the point of writing for the enemy which is the crux of NPOV from the point of restraining advocacy. The snag with lawyers is that they will likely treat policy pages as legal drafting when they are not. But in any case the contrast is instructive, I think. Charles, I really am a bit mystified here. First of all, I would echo Tom's point about the insider fallacy. In quality management terms, the people Wikipedia writes about are customers, just as readers are. That's quality management ABC, and I can't imagine why you would contest that. Secondly, even the WMUK/CIPR guideline allows that there is a way for PR companies to contribute: by using the talk page and noticeboards. At least those PR professionals who comply with that guideline deserve to receive efficient service, and there can be no intimation that what they do is in any way improper, and had better be done by a lawyer. And if all they do is use talk pages and noticeboards, then they don't have to be able to edit within NPOV to have a right to be at the WP table. Just turning up on a talk page is enough. Do you disagree? Thirdly, as Andy has pointed out, PR professionals and employees are not actually at present forbidden from editing Wikipedia. Until four weeks ago, people who clicked Contact us to report an article problem were presented with one invitation after another to just go and fix the article themselves. And the number of articles edited by organisations' staff is legion. I sometimes think a quarter of Wikipedia wouldn't exist if it weren't for conflict-of-interest edits. They're everywhere. Pick any article on a minor company, musician or publication, and chances are you'll find the subject or staff members in the edit history. People have PR departments, or hire PR agents, to manage their reputation. That's just how it is. If they come to Wikipedia with a justified complaint, Wikipedia should have a process in place that does not require them to edit the article themselves, but provides them with a reasonable level of service, and gets things done when that's the right thing to do. There should be no quibbling that PR professionals have no right to complain in Wikipedia. I don't think that's what you're saying, as you say you are well aware of the need to improved the relationship between Wikipedia and PR professionals, but just what you *are* saying to Tom then escapes me at the moment. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 15/11/12 12:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote: CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site. 'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.' Can we assume that printed inaccuracies don't figure here? The Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica come to mind. At least with (daily) newspapers, corrections can appear in print the next day. With Private Eye, it will take two weeks at least. You cannot compare the tripe that gets put into Wikipedia with the occasional error that might slip through in Britannica or the ODB. It's worse than the worst tabloid, and that will remain so at least until Wikipedia has flagged revisions. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 16 November 2012 09:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Charles, I really am a bit mystified here. First of all, I would echo Tom's point about the insider fallacy. In quality management terms, the people Wikipedia writes about are customers, just as readers are. That's quality management ABC, and I can't imagine why you would contest that. Well, ask the management of The Sun whether the celebs they write about are the customers, and they'll have a good belly-laugh. Since I'm not interested in the tabloid side of WP I know what you are saying here, but I don't think you are expressing the point. Everyone knows that WP operates on universal principles rather than things you find in management books. Let's just say then that both readers and subjects have certain rightful expectations of Wikipedia, and how well Wikipedia fulfils them is a measure of the quality of Wikipedia's service. Secondly, even the WMUK/CIPR guideline allows that there is a way for PR companies to contribute: by using the talk page and noticeboards. At least those PR professionals who comply with that guideline deserve to receive efficient service, and there can be no intimation that what they do is in any way improper, and had better be done by a lawyer. And if all they do is use talk pages and noticeboards, then they don't have to be able to edit within NPOV to have a right to be at the WP table. Just turning up on a talk page is enough. Do you disagree? About the lawyer: I think I have been misunderstood here. I meant that a lawyer probably has had enough training and background to deal with the actual issues of representing a client on WP. I was not suggesting that anyone should be using a lawyer to make legal threats and so on. Since I was involved in the CIPR guideline draft I know what it says. I think we (the WP community) should show a courteous face to all who come to talk pages and elsewhere on the site needing help. Thirdly, as Andy has pointed out, PR professionals and employees are not actually at present forbidden from editing Wikipedia. I was heavily involved in drafting the COI guideline in 2006, so I know what it says (or used to say, at least). Until four weeks ago, people who clicked Contact us to report an article problem were presented with one invitation after another to just go and fix the article themselves. And the number of articles edited by organisations' staff is legion. I sometimes think a quarter of Wikipedia wouldn't exist if it weren't for conflict-of-interest edits. They're everywhere. Pick any article on a minor company, musician or publication, and chances are you'll find the subject or staff members in the edit history. I think your estimate assumes too much. It would be more helpful to understand how big the problematic sector really is. People have PR departments, or hire PR agents, to manage their reputation. That's just how it is. If they come to Wikipedia with a justified complaint, Wikipedia should have a process in place that does not require them to edit the article themselves, but provides them with a reasonable level of service, and gets things done when that's the right thing to do. There should be no quibbling that PR professionals have no right to complain in Wikipedia. The right to complain on behalf of someone else is an innovation, I think. And this is where I have a problem. Arrogating to ones' self the right to complain not just about the content (which surely anyone can do) but as representative of a particular interest is questionable. Historically lobbyists had to wait in the lobby? I don't think that's what you're saying, as you say you are well aware of the need to improved the relationship between Wikipedia and PR professionals, but just what you *are* saying to Tom then escapes me at the moment. As I said, my example of lawyers was more to do with fitness to do the job actually required than about role. Okay, I see what you're saying now. Lawyers are perhaps more used to situations where they have to tell a client, You can't do that, or You can't do it that way. I have had a couple of interesting conversations with people outside the community about training PR folk to the point where they could more fruitfully do the job of defending clients on WP. What was interesting was that my estimate of how much training it would take was at odds with the estimate I was being given of how long the trainees' companies would be prepared to allow them to take off the job. Time is money, in that sector. But we have to face this as a practical issue, if WMUK (for example) is to move to doing workshops with the PR sector. My actual problem comes down to this: if we are required to teach a quick-and-dirty approach to WP editing to PR pros who then expect
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote: It isn't a terribly rewarding role and burnout is common. Triage won't solve the problem as there are so many complaints that aren't simple to deal with satisfactorily, and we already have a system in place for it which may creak but works better than nothing. Recruitment isn't easy because it isn't something many Wikipedians really want to do. Pending changes would probably help a lot but many editors have no idea of what OTRS do and those who do probably don't understand the scale of the problem or the consequences of not dealing firmly with it. Doug I agree Pending Changes or Flagged Revisions would help, along with an on-wiki venue where people would be guaranteed a response within 24 hours. Pending changes would cut out a lot of the silly stuff, like those examples SmartSE gave. An on-wiki venue with a good response time would reduce OTRS workload, increase transparency, and reduce complaints that the process is cumbersome. If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's bright line rule) http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles you'll see that point 3 begins: If there is no response ..., and point 4 likewise begins, If you get no response. The process also requires people to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page. That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve customer satisfaction. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote: Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that. Charles mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes yesterday as related to this question. Given that this court judgment is based on EU law, it could potentially have quite far-reaching consequences for the legal status of COI editing in Wikipedia. Wikimedia Germany have commissioned a legal opinion from an expert. Could I suggest Wikimedia UK do the same? While the underlying EU Directive applies in both countries, there may be differences in national implementation. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello everyone, PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ Basically, it's a defence of Wikipedia's editing policies quoting the CIPR and yours truly. Do let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks, Stevie There is a little bit of a gap between what you say, and what CIPR say. ---o0o--- Stevie Benton responded by calling the comments 'inaccurate'. 'I don't think it's cumbersome at all,' he said. 'It's quite straightforward. It's not just PR professionals who need to abide by this, it's everyone.' [...] CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site. 'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.' ---o0o--- You say everything is fine, and CIPR acknowledge it can be frustrating, and that Wikipedia is working on it. ;) I think in the long term, the latter position is the better one to take, along with doing some real work on improving the customer experience as much as it is possible within the constraints of a volunteer-run system. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that. Yes, we need to always say it's a guideline. I usually phrase it something like It's not strictly forbidden by Wikipedia's rules, but it's a really bad idea because the media *will* crucify you and your client. So I think you shouldn't do it. Well, if the German court decision is anything to go by, you may be able to add another reason: And there's a chance your competitors will be able to sue you. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Tom , I think that's a fair comment - but we have the problem that we can't actually employ anyone to provide that service. An an OTRS volunteer yourself, do you have any suggestions on how we can bring more people into the fold? It doesn't seem to be something we can reasonably incentivise, either. It's something of a quandary! Stevie More OTRS volunteers would help, but in a situation like this it's more important to think about problem prevention than about increasing the number of people fixing problems. That means things like flagged revisions, to prevent malicious edits from ever being seen by readers and subjects, and providing a responsive service on-wiki to fix whatever does slip through, so people have no need to come running to OTRS. Andreas On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello all, I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow. The main points: - I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians, Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers - I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect - Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the content - I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR platform. I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list. Thanks and regards, Stevie Here is a good thread started by a Wikipedia admin, Smartse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Spotting_off-wiki_disputes_that_end_up_causing_serious_problems_here . He gives the example of a person who posted at least seven times to the AIV board about clear BLP violations, and never got an answer. (Of course it's not the right board, or the right format, but it shows how people struggle with our system.) As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The too thin phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012. Charles Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:42, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. What do you suggest the WMF should or could do? In my experience, they are wary of getting involved in anything that might imply they are exercising control over content, as that could conceivably jeopardise their Section 230 safe harbour protection, and leave them with liability for anonymous people's edits. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=379790641oldid=377970394 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=392056591oldid=391203395 I'd encourage you to post a message on the article talk page pointing towards the diff that you link to, so that the editors that are currently looking at that article are aware of it. Thanks, Mike Thanks Mike. Will do. Andreas On 13 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If this diff was the change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=482553850oldid=481482592 When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now. Andreas On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making. Thanks, Stevie On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia. You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below. I wouldn't say the Telegraph republished the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly also ran the story. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
Along with MSN News, the Daily Mail is in fact the most read news source in the English speaking world, according to this article: http://www.nouse.co.uk/2012/11/12/the-daily-mail-lolcats-with-a-masthead/ I don't know whether that is just online, or the combined number of online and print readers. In terms of print circulation, the Daily Mail is no. 2 in the UK (after The Sun), with close to 2 million copies sold. The Mail Online website overtook the New York Times website in January of this year to become the most read newspaper website. Andreas On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: (It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.) I completely agree. It's very scary that the Daily Mail is more accessible than the Times on the internet right now. :-? Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, fab...@unpopular.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I found this a bit comical: http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/ They don't get it that the COI policy affects everyone. They think that just because they want people to pay them to change the articles they should be allowed to do so! Ingham added that ‘too many of the people who edit Wikipedia still do not understand PR’. ‘Too many of them continue to have the knee-jerk reaction that information from a PR professional must intrinsically be wrong.’ Ingham urged Wikipedia to implement ‘radical reform’ to its editing process. Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that they do not understand you. No-one is saying their information is intrinsically wrong, just that they should not edit articles relating to their clients. all the best Leuthe That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_usoldid=513214834 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problemoldid=512211633 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject)oldid=499179529 It is now vastly improved – Oliver (Ironholds) did some fantastic work on it in October, and cut out some subpages altogether – but until last month, it was a daunting task just to locate the OTRS e-mail, and on the way there you passed a prominent invitation to just Fix it yourself. Another problem is that OTRS can sometimes take weeks to reply. One very distressed BLP subject told me it was four weeks before he heard back. Also see this comment by Jclemens: I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COIdiff=479583654oldid=479583284 PR people are told to leave messages on article talk pages. Problem is, these are routinely ignored for days, weeks or forever. Even if they're not, often the only editors attending are those responsible for the state of the article that caused the complaint in the first place. On Jimbo's talk page someone just suggested using the COI noticeboard as a default location for PR people to raise concerns. I think that could work: there are regulars attending to that noticeboard, and complaints there would get outside eyes on the perceived problem, and an answer within a reasonable time frame. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Paul Wilkinson paul.wilkin...@pwcom.co.uk wrote: Dear Andreas Francis Ingham is DG of the PRCA. Its fee-paying members include RLM Finsbury (among other WPP companies), so, ultimately, it contributes to his salary. Possible COI? Paul Come on, you are a CIPR fellow, and CIPR and PRCA are rival bodies. In fact, Ingham used to be the CIPR's assistant director, until he defected to the PRCA. Shall I make an ad-hominem comment based on your COI too? Yes, Finsbury is one of several hundred members of PRCA. Even so Ingham did not condone their behaviour. And what he says about the poor perception of PR professionals is the same thing CIPR have said (and according to Wikipedia, it's one thing CIPR and PRCA agree on, and have collaborated on). The question is not, does the man have a COI; the question is, Is there merit in what he says? And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. PR professionals could be invited to post to the COI noticeboard AND the article talk page at the same time (leaving a link on the article talk page to the COIN discussion), so they get a prompt response. There should be a discussion whether PR professionals should be forbidden or encouraged to contribute to COI noticeboard queries where they do not have a COI themselves beyond being PR professionals too. These are some ideas. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] qrpedia.org and qrwp.org
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 31/10/12 18:17, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Is the information given by whois up to date? Always. Gordo So is there going to be a change in ownership of qrwp.org at some point, or have those plans been scrapped? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] qrpedia.org and qrwp.org
What is the current status of qrpedia.org and qrwp.org please? Is the information given by whois up to date? http://whois.domaintools.com/qrwp.org http://whois.domaintools.com/qrpedia.org Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Latest WMUK blog post - message from our Board
Has the independent reviewer been picked yet? And if or when they have, could you publish the reviewer's name and contact information? Thanks. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Independent review: timetable
Minutes have been posted of a 9Oct12 meeting discussing the appointment of the independent reviewer: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_9Oct12 Just out of interest, where it refers to a preference to the ex-CC candidate, am I correct in assuming that CC stands for Charity Commission rather than Creative Commons? Andreas On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: We are still discussing this and will publish the details as soon as possible. On 4 October 2012 15:52, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What is the timetable for the forthcoming independent review? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility
Could someone be so kind as to answer John's question? On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly? John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Do *you* have any evidence for that? For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility
The minutes of the meeting on 19 September, where Roger's resignation offer was accepted, have been online since last Saturday: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_19Sep12#Part_2 There are no minutes relating to any previous resignation offers I can find. Andreas On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 09/10/12 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote: As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!) My collection was that Roger Bamkin's resignation was tendered more than once, and hence would be in extant minutes. I have no idea where I read that, so I could be wrong. Gordo __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Support service (was:Social enterprise)
This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to arrive at some clarity about the fundamental issues. I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_commercial_consultancy_service Andreas On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: On 3 October 2012 12:51, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: (starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, hope that is OK) I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't really work and people need more support than just an email address they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and procedure, Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part. OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or no success with Wikipedia! Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do that. Sure, that's an issue. I see where you are coming from (the Roth issue in large part stemmed from the fact that they ended up contacting the wrong place entirely!). and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a paid service.) The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to someone and say I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed when they are paying you to do that... :D It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.) Yes, I suppose. It's not so easy as that, though, speaking as an OTRS regular. One of two things can happen with regularity; a seemingly innocuous issue gets blown up by editors for no apparent reason, which leads to dramaz. Or, the initial concerns appear quite OK, but once you get onboard discussing with them it turns out they are more complex and fundamental. I'm also concerned that the target market consists of mainly two types of client: * One that wants to rewrite large portions of the article * One that wants very minor issues fixed (Please correct this logo, Our CEO has changed, that source refers to someone else!) etc. Having an upfront meeting with the latter is not worth it, as this will likely take longer than resolving the issue. And the former represents the minefield I mentioned. I also suspect that the En.Wiki community would reject anyone being able to do any substantive work on articles under such a scheme. That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to sort it out. I am actually thinking along those lines... I'm not talking about editor recruitment type things. But more hi everyone, these are the Wikipedia policies, and why we have them and then let them loose with a room full of editors who can sit and work through specific issues. With the benefit that everyone is at educated in at least the rudiments of policy. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@wikimedia.org.auwrote: Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people how to use Wikipedia, what villainy and wickedness! I'm not surprised that Roger isn't dignifying this nonsense with a direct response, and I can't say I blame him either. We are not just talking about teaching people how to use Wikipedia. We are talking about people being paid to teach members of the public to edit Wikipedia, for projects that in some cases are openly described and sold as marketing initiatives. Does your chapter have programmes like that? As the minutes and disclosure statements show, Roger has been pretty clear about this with the board and with the members at the AGM, and the information you are dredging up is all on the public record. If there is a grand conspiracy here to secretly a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment, then it's a pretty inept one. Rather than Roger resigning, I think it would be better if you just stopped trolling this list. Don't try to bully me. I voted for Roger in this year's board election. That was before the Geovation bid, and before he became a paid consultant for the government of Gibraltar – a fact which the Spanish daily of record, El País, pointed out this morning is not noted on his Wikipedia user page. That's an oversight that should be fixed. The El País article is currently on the elpais.com front page (not sure about the paper edition). Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided. http://elpais.com/ Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote: On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided. For someone in the public eye, no matter how properly they behave, a person with an axe to grind can always spin an appearance of impropriety. The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediAis clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit oughtto be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives,not to promote separate business goals. – Erik Möller, September 19, 2012 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html And let's say Roger does resign: who's the next target on your list? That is simply nonsense. There was no need to instrumentalise Wikipedia as a marketing tool for third parties to use, to sell the project as such, and to derive personal income from these projects. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
Here is a video of a presentation openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM Quotes: Can we help put Bristol on the global map longer term, that's why we want to talk to you today. [3.25] Roger's going to tell you all about Derby Museum, and what we did for them. [3.40] We partnered Derby Museum. [...] We thought we'd pick on one small museum and give it a lot of it, national attention, even international attention, into one museum, just to see what kind of effect we could have on a museum, how we could affect its profile. [6.23] We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias [... English, French, Polish, Russian ...] It's giving us more hits to Derby Museum's web page, so it's actually going from our page, clicking through to their web page, it's fulfilling our mission to educate and to share information around the world, and it's raising the interest and status of the city. [12.22] It's a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map. [17.41] I am not comfortable with this sales pitch – especially when it is combined with private consultancy contracts for those making it. It is not consistent with the spirit and ideals of the project I signed up to more than six years ago, and with the spirit and ideals of Wikipedia as communicated to the public. And it is arguably an exploitation of volunteer editors for personal profit. There is a telling passage in the latter part of the presentation about how creating massive amounts of text in multiple languages would have cost a lot of money, and how, just by advertising prizes of some books and a £50 book voucher on Wikipedia, 100 articles were created for the project in the space of one week, at no cost. Today, even after the brouhaha all over the European press, another Gibraltar DYK ran on the Wikipedia main page. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
I'd get back to the guy, and ask him to make the necessary corrections. It's not paper, and he's already realised that Gibraltar is not an island. :) Andreas On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM, User Panyd wikipa...@gmail.com wrote: I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is *actually doing* - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write. For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: Eh, you're wrong. That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from *both* sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them. I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community. Fiona ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
Roger,
I would ask that you resign from the board. As it is, it will look as
though your directorship in WMUK is a factor in enabling you to get
consultancy work for yourself, your company and your associates, and I
can't see how either the appearance or the reality of that would be
compatible with the first and second Nolan requirements.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct#Nolan_Committee_Requirements
Andreas
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.comwrote:
Name change of my user account? That is an odd request. I did look at the
policy and it says
Talk to the user
If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in
bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to
encourage them to create a new account with a different username. If you
want, you can use the
{{subst:uw-usernamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-username
}} or
{{subst:uw-coi-usernamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi-username
}} template for this.
I'm sorry if I'm not replying to all the inquiries here, but there are a
lot. I chose Victuallers Ltd as its the name I am associated with and I
wasn't aware that it had a promotional value. Changing my user name is not
an issue if it causes hassle. (I would in retrospect have chosen my own
name to edit under.) Can some send me the link of where this user name
debate is in progress?
I realise that this is a very interesting debate but do try and remember
that these facts that are being discovered are public knowledge. The
project was announced at Wikimania, no less, with a video that set out the
projects plans and expectations. The video made it clear that the minister
for tourism was involved and that this was not a WMUK project. The project
does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques
based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to
use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al).
The ownership of the QRpedia domains has been documented in WMUK minutes
and it was obvious when I made a presentation at the Wikiconference in 2011
(before I was elected as a director). As Chris has noted the transfer of
the intellectual property to WMUK has run on for months. There is no
conspiracy. The rights to QRpedia are intended as a gift and cannot be just
demanded.
Those who voted for me and/or attended the last wiki AGM/conference are
aware that I was (and am) offering my expertise as a consutant. These are
the same skills as I was paid for at the end of the Monmouthpedia project.
All of this was overseen by the board. The COI conflict meant that I gladly
stepped down as Chair but I was asked to stay on as a board member. The
board agreed to manage the COI conflict, which I am obviously pleased to
comply with.
I'm hoping that a lleast clears up some of the debate.
regards
Roger Bamkin (prev. known as Victuallers?)
On 19 September 2012 07:59, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote:
I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in
contravention of our Username policy on promotional names -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names
Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not ask for a change
of name, but given the circumstances I think a name change might be a
good idea.
Doug Weller
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself:
https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422
Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea
address?:
3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green
tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?
How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local
groups
and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's
really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be
geotagged.
The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with
any
AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User
(tourist or
local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or
where's
the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and
where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia
and
multiply it by 10!
How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer
possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old
photographs,
which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged.
They
would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to
create
new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their
chapel,
and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could
show off their latest Brochure for Parents
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html ---o0o--- Roger's been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list (which is publicly archived): http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009235.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009241.html He also updated his declaration of interest on Wikimedia UK's website to assert that his contract with Gibraltar does not include paid editing:https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin But (personal opinions only): - IMO the video shown at Wikimania didn't make the distinction of roles sufficiently clear, and the confused media reporting should have been in Wikimedia UK's interest to correct (much like it has been in WMF's interest to correct journalists who confuse WMF/Wikia). Were attempts made to do so? - The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA is clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit ought to be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives, not to promote separate business goals. Yes, it's possible to try very hard to keep these things separate (and it appears that Roger's followed the guidelines the chapter's come up with, and previously stepped down as chair to address this), but it still creates a perception that for-profit and non-profit interests are in contention, especially when projects like GibraltarpediA which are conceived as part of an individual's business activities are considered for the chapter's programmatic portfolio, and when that individual is publicly identified with that organization's brand and mission throughout. Beyond obvious financial relationships, the intangible associations (I am a trustee of Wikimedia UK) matter when conflicts of interest are considered. - My understanding is that qrpedia.org is still under individual control, rather than chapter control. Is that correct? If so this is a bit problematic, and it would be good to secure control of it (I'm not offering that WMF would host it; I don't think the value/impact case for QR codes is sufficiently strong for that, but it would be good for at least a chapter to take responsibility for it for now). It would be good to get some more clarity from the UK chapter on its official position on these issues. I don't think this is a big scandal, it's the normal kind of confusion of roles and responsibilities that occurs often in small and growing, volunteer-led organizations. Everyone involved is clearly first and foremost motivated by contributing to Wikimedia's mission. But if this is not fully and thoroughly addressed there's a risk that it will continue to reflect poorly on Wikimedia. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself: https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422 Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different? How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10! How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them. What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! *Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians*, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. *Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism.* Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple. Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below. Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian Ws pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the W shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged. http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-challenge/ Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500. As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to become volunteer editors. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on wiki to date. Andreas On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles. Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440 Which: a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I suggest we quickly resolve the following issues: * Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect they approached the Monmouthpedia orgnaisers? * If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to think they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach? * Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar contract? I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a statement be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity. Tom On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: Accidentally sent offlist... Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list. Is it possible to change the default behaviour of the Reply button back? It never used to do this. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Jimbo has commented on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK Andreas So nice to agree with Jimbo. Paid work as Trustee is not against Charity Commission rules. We agreed that previously. But to take on Monothopedia and Gib-Pedia? And stay on as a Trustee? It was noted that he sits out of discussions on such projects. Time to sit out. For good, Roger? And carry on the good work (but not as a Trustee)? I'm sorry, but I agree with Jimbo as well on this. It's simply not appropriate for board members to do private business on the strength of their board membership. This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible. Take coverage like this article here: http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of *marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia* which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success. As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK. I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and pioneering project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission. But Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder. Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join the ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of the community, without the shelter of WMUK. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible. Take coverage like this article here: http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success. As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK. I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and pioneering project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission. But Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder. Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join the ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of the community, without the shelter of WMUK. Andreas Leaving out the Jimbo bit, why does anyone disagree with Andreas? Ok, you can modify the 'string of UK directors', but the basic principles? Just a minor correction – I did not write long string of UK directors, but Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK. The reason I said that is because there has been significant interest from other towns and cities. John Virgin, posting on the Wikimedia UK blog in July, said, ---o0o--- Tyson’s initiative, in talking to Neil Costa, and instigating an approach on behalf of this British Overseas territory, greatly impressed the Monmouthpedia organisers, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings. *They had already been inundated with offers from people looking for their city to be the world’s second Wikipedia town.* Offers had come in from the Czech Republic, the USA, Norway and elsewhere. None had such strong political support behind them. http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/tag/gibraltarpedia/ ---o0o--- And offers here means business offers, because it involves paid consultancy jobs for their companies. There is clearly enough paid work here for many years. Now it would be a different thing – still untenable, but differently so – if the revenue from that paid consultancy were to accrue to Wikimedia UK or the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than to the consultants personally. But they don't: they are private earnings. I have nothing against successful business ideas and private ventures, but in this case Roger's Wikimedia UK directorship is an element of how these services are marketed, and how they are reported upon in the press, e.g. here: ---o0o--- IT was the cyber http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/cyber project that made the sleepy market town of Monmouth a internet phenomenon. And Monmouthpedia has been so successful the mastermind behind the project is taking the idea to the British Territory of Gibraltar. Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK - the charity that supports Wikipedia's mission - and the co-creator of Monmouthpedia. He picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world hoping to be the second Wikipedia town. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Monmouthpedia+idea+goes+global+as+creator+looks+to+Gibraltar+for+next...-a0297237924 ---o0o--- How is this not a gravy train? I understand that Steve Virgin, as a former Wikimedia UK director, is also in business for himself, together with John Cummings and Roger. And according to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin, Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales. There is a reference to it on this page: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports_26Jul12 under the heading RB, saying, Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more. What is this Geovation bid? What involvement, if any, does Wikimedia UK have in the project? What is this 100K funding? Does this too involve paid consultancy work? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct? If so, what I don't understand is this: what is the point of signing over the intellectual property rights to Wikimedia UK? How will this benefit Wikimedia UK? And why are they signed over to Wikimedia UK, rather than the Wikimedia Foundation, or the public domain? Will Wikimedia UK ever be able to benefit from holding the intellectual property rights in a way that the rest of the Wikimedia movement and the rest of the world will not? Andreas On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM, joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: My understanding is that there has been an ongoing delay in the transferring of the intellectual property to Wikimedia UK, this was the situation nearly 3 months ago. As far as I am aware there is still a delay in this on roger's side. Seddon -- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:04:58 +0100 From: werespielchequ...@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few how to edit leaflets out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit. But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my understanding of QR codes then all the QR codes that we are encouraging people to use point to that domain and are currently repointed to Wikipedia articles. So if we are going to promote QRpedia we need to know that the domain is part of the movement. WSC On 17 September 2012 13:01, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I assume that people are finding the details out online, and they're then assuming that we're the best people to contact (confusion between 'Wikimedians from the UK' and 'Wikimedia UK'). As far as I know, no-one's been given our contact details in relation to the project, and the site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Achievements gives i...@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting0207 065 0992 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 17 September 2012 12:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Good morning Tom. Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient by their very nature but in answer to your specific question: The board agreed that we would be happy to supply 'learn to edit' booklets and and some office support. In reality this means referring any callers on to Roger whether from the Media or just people interested in the project. I hope this helps, Thank you for clarifying that. Are people being intentionally given WMUK's contact details, or are people just finding them online and assuming that WMUK is the best place to contact regarding Gibraltarpedia? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct? Correct. To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Thanks Chris. That makes more sense. :) Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated. 1. Paid editing To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific Wikimedia UK policy on paid editing. We have never actively decided not to have one, we just don't - this is really the Wikipedia community's call not ours. Whether it is written down anywhere or not, we do have a very clear policy that WMUK does not pay people to edit. Obviously, that isn't what is happening here - the government of Gibraltar is paying Roger, not WMUK - but the reasons behind that policy still apply. Conflicts of interest are not, in themselves, a problem, but they must be carefully managed. One of the key ways of managing a conflict is to have very clear demarcation. It must be very clear in what capacity you are acting at any given time. I don't think there is sufficient demarcation between Roger's roles as a trustee, a Wikipedia volunteer and a Gibraltar contractor. The confusion is primarily between the latter two, but that should still be of concern to the chapter. Well said, though I think the confusion between the roles of trustee and contractor is greater than you indicate – simply because a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK may be a more attractive proposition to a client than a consultant who is not – because a client may set greater store by an assurance that content will not be nasty if it is made by a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK. Such assurances were reportedly made. From the article Gibraltarpedia: A New Way to Market the Rock: 'As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.” ' http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25479 A client unfamiliar with Wikipedia would have an expectation that a director of Wikimedia UK would be able to deliver on the promise that disagreeable content would be reverted in short order – or at least more able than someone who was not a Wikimedia director. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct? Correct. To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Thanks Chris. That makes more sense. :) Actually, one more question. Chris Owen says on the DYK talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_DYK that Roger is apparently being *paid for the use of these domains*, which I understand link the users of mobile devices to Wikipedia content. Does that mean that, once the transfer of these sites to Wikimedia UK is complete, Wikimedia UK will be charging customers of these sites to generate revenue? Or will QRpedia thereafter be a free encyclopedia? Or is Chris Owen altogether mistaken about QRpedia being a paid service? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote: OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages. I'd prefer an online system (e.g. as in en:WP arbcom elections) to one involving ballot papers. A. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Gibraltarpedia
Panyd raised some conflict-of-interest concerns related to Gibraltarpedia that may merit discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_DYK A. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 16/09/12 20:02, Thomas Dalton wrote: Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing. And in no way conflicts with his legal status as a Trustee? Gordo Dan Murphy on Wikipediocracy asked, http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17594#p17594 ---o0o--- I'm feeling more than usually dim. Is this the story? Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests. If so, wow. ---o0o--- His question was based on the draft minutes of the 8 September meeting here http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes_8Sep12oldid=28591#2.15pm_Project_proposals which said, ---o0o--- Gibraltarpedia update / MOU - Roger (25 mins) Roger updated the board on Gibraltarpedia, and explained how he would like to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Wikimedia UK. This would not involve the transfer of any funds, but would mean that Wikimedia UK would offer in-kind support in the form of press coverage and various merchandise. *DECISION: It was agreed that the office can support Gibraltarpedia with in-kind contributions, but not funds* ---o0o--- I understand the minutes are still being edited, but surely, we can assume that the decision outlined there was indeed taken at the 8 September meeting. And if so, then I have to say it looks to me very much like Dan's summary was correct. If it isn't, what exactly about it is untrue? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
Jimbo has commented on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 26
Thanks for the update, Joscelyn. Andreas On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM, joscelyn.upend...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Thanks for the suggestions and views about whether/what sort of submission WMUK should make to the consultation on the CDB. There isn't a 'response' to comment on at the moment as we agreed as a Board on Thursday night that WMUK should go ahead and make a submission to the consultation. The Board agreed that we should keep the WMUK response brief, more to raise a flag about the Bill needing reconsideration, rather than a full blown detailed response of the type Open Rights Group is likely to submit. I will only get time to work on a response towards the end of next week / weekend while being conscious of the deadline of 23rd August. If anyone would like to kick-start things prior to then, that would be great. Thanks, Joscelyn -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikimediauk-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 04 August 2012 13:01 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 26 Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimediauk-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimediauk-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Request from Open Rights Group (Martin Poulter) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:14:30 +0100 From: Martin Poulter infob...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Request from Open Rights Group Message-ID: CABCnYt38=vc7cBLBP0qneBBa-L9u= weu1pec31-vtjpsuap...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Asking people to comment on something they haven't seen would indeed be unreasonable. Fortunately, Jon did something entirely different: inviting those interested to get in touch with the person who will write the response. Why not take up the suggestion? On 3 August 2012 20:41, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 August 2012 13:43, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I sent this around a while back. The ORG would like our support. Joscelyn Upendram is preparing a simple reponse on our behalf, if anyone wants to offer her ideas contact her directly Jon Davies. Its unreasonable to expect people to comment without at least a rough idea of what response is being prepared. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Dr Martin L Poulter Wikipedia contributor http://enwp.org/User:MartinPoulter Wikimedia UK contributor http://uk.wikimedia.org/ Musician http://myspace.com/comapilot Person http://infobomb.org/ -- ___ Wikimediauk-l mailing list Wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l End of Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 26 * ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Request from Open Rights Group
I would be strongly opposed to endorsing political lobbying groups on this or any other issues. I would like Wikimedia UK to be an educational organisation that remains fastidiously neutral on these conflicts and does not take any political sides, whether it is the side of the Pirate Party (featured quite prominently on the ORG website) or any of the more mainstream parties. Andreas On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I sent this around a while back. The ORG would like our support. Joscelyn Upendram is preparing a simple reponse on our behalf, if anyone wants to offer her ideas contact her directly Jon Davies. From ORG: 'Peter, is preparing a CDB briefing for companies and holders of user comms data. This is pretty much where you are as an organisation, although you may wish to make broader points if you put evidence to the consultation.' The deadline is August 23, and details are here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-communications-bill/news/call-for-evidence/ -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513 Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Request from Open Rights Group
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I understand your fear of appearing political but it is not political to respond to government consultations - that is a civic duty. The Charity commission is very clear about this: All charities are united by having a vision of a better society. They have many different purposes, and are focused on different needs. But in the main they are united by a desire to achieve change, whether for a particular group of people in need, or for the wider common good. It is not surprising then that many charities wish to speak out, to use their voice and influence, and to campaign for the changes that would best help them achieve their purposes. Have a look at the guidance in detail: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/ccpubs3.aspx So it is then up to a charity to decide 'what is relevant' In our case we felt that SOPA/PIPA was relevant and went as far as to black out the English Wikipedia for a day. Not a decision I agreed with. ;) It is indeed commendable if Wikimedia UK responds to a government consultation, but I'd prefer it if it weren't under the aegis of the Open Rights Group, or any other lobbying group. That's all. Jimbo once said something, when speaking of Wikipedia's non-commercialism, to the effect that Wikipedia should be a temple of the mind. With the advent and growth of the Pirate Party, Internet regulation is a party-political issue. And when it comes to such issues, I would like Wikimedia to be as neutral as Switzerland. :) We should be committed to education, not political action. That doesn't mean that Wikimedia can't respond to a government consultation, and tell government how a proposed bill would affect it. I am under no illusion that I am expressing an opinion likely to be particularly popular here. But I thought I'd mention it. Regards, Andreas More recently we were consulted on copyright issues and with community support we were able to make our case The board agreed that this would be a suitable issue to comment on. Thanks for your input, Jon Davies. On 3 August 2012 13:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I would be strongly opposed to endorsing political lobbying groups on this or any other issues. I would like Wikimedia UK to be an educational organisation that remains fastidiously neutral on these conflicts and does not take any political sides, whether it is the side of the Pirate Party (featured quite prominently on the ORG website) or any of the more mainstream parties. Andreas On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I sent this around a while back. The ORG would like our support. Joscelyn Upendram is preparing a simple reponse on our behalf, if anyone wants to offer her ideas contact her directly Jon Davies. From ORG: 'Peter, is preparing a CDB briefing for companies and holders of user comms data. This is pretty much where you are as an organisation, although you may wish to make broader points if you put evidence to the consultation.' The deadline is August 23, and details are here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-communications-bill/news/call-for-evidence/ -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513 Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513 Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. ArbCom had a number of reasons for their decision to ban Fae. These included that he operated about a dozen different accounts, refused to disclose all of them to ArbCom, and had in their view attempted to deceive both the Wikipedia community and ArbCom itself. Fae used commercial porn sites as biographical sources in Wikipedia. In one case in June last year, he linked directly to a video clip showing the biography subject, a black woman author, having sex (these were scenes from a video she had tried to suppress), and vigorously defended that BLP sourcing. He has since apologised for this error in judgment, but this must be seen against the backdrop that it was Fae who, only a few weeks later, told Parliament and the Charity Commission that the English Wikipedia had an effective BLP policy, which was being effectively maintained by the site's administrators, such as himself. Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 27 July 2012 12:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Everybody on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. 600 is less than the number of active administrators, though. But let's not argue about numbers. I have given some context for my remark now, which you could have. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that each individual arbitrator was voted into office with 300 to 600 Wikimedians' support votes, vs. three or four dozen for each Wikimedia UK board member. ArbCom represents a significantly greater Wikimedia electorate (probably even within the UK) than the WMUK board. But no matter. I agree arguments about numbers are tedious. Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation. I have certainly not been attacking ArbCom as an institution. I have a long-term problem with the workshop, which I have never liked, but otherwise I think ArbCom in general does pretty well. I sometimes disagree with Arbitration decisions; when I was asked about this particular pending decision by a Board member, I said that ArbCom is fallible, but it tends to know more about the case than we do (i.e. not all the information they have is always public, or fit to be made public). I in fact met three arbs for the first time at Wikimania, with two of whom I had worked. I talked also with Risker, who came onto the committee after me. I am not attacking any of these people, please let me say. There is a half-told story about the Fae case and Wikimania and the ban, clearly, but I am also not going to try to tell that story either. I am not going to say let's move on, because the topic of the thread is a legitimate one for members of the chapter to discuss. I am not myself a WMUK member, and I have things to do now, as do the Board and Fae. I have my own views on framing the issue, which have to some extent appeared in this thread. Please everyone respect AGF in any further contributions, and minimise personalia. Fair enough, Charles. Let me add that, like everyone else, I don't agree with every detail of every ArbCom decision either. That's only natural; the arbs don't even always agree among themselves. But on the whole I believe the committee as a group get it right, and significantly more so than the community average as expressed at a free-for-all venue like ANI. If ANI were all Wikipedia had, all hope would be lost. Even where I wish ArbCom had decided differently in a specific case, I can still see that the decision they made was made in good faith, and within the realm of what's reasonable. One can't ask for more than that. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: It didn't come to me (not worried; just noting) Tom Me neither (ditto). Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Piece by Jimmy Wales on front page f Today's Guardian
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 25/06/12 10:59, brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org wrote: Rather than nitpicking about this, I hope people are signing the petition and sharing it via twitter and facebook. I mean,_linking to_ online TV is considered a copyvio? Next thing you know, being able to remember any details of a TV show you watched last week will be considered a copyvio for having a 'copy' in your brain. Brian McNeil -- I am not sure of the charges, but, yes, I can see how a link to is a copyright violation, in the context of sharing. YMMV, FWIW, that's the point of view Wikipedia itself takes. It expressly forbods linking to copyright violations, and cites a legal precedent as its reasoning. The relevant policy paragraph is Wikipedia:LINKVIOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:LINKVIOredirect=no – ... if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement in the United States (*Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve_v._Utah_Lighthouse_Ministry * [1] http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The point is repeated in WP:ELNEVER: For policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOP or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, *without exception*: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. *This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribd or YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.* * * Not sure how that squares with Jimbo's First Amendment argument. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Main page seen by library users - where is Wikipedia?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote: That must have been very unpleasant for both of you. However, I would counter with the observation that it's also possible for someone to slip an image cut from a pornographic magazine between the pages of a library book; if that were to happen, we would neither expect nor encourage librarians to stop recommending books. Possible, yes, though somewhat rarer. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts
Is a user name like MonmouthMuseumWales promotional? You could equally argue that it is transparent. And it is just this sort of transparency which we demand from the Bell Pottingers of this world (and crucify them for if we find them editing as John Smith, without telling us who they work for). I think a company name account should be fine, as long as the person gives their real name on their user page, and states that they are the only ones editing from that account. That is more accountability and transparency than we have for any pseudonymous account. Andreas On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections are different. As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not allowing role accounts was concern over copyright. But the concerns over trust are different and apply quite strongly. I'm pretty sure we don't whitelist IP accounts for Huggle, we certainly don't give IP editors admin and other additional userrights. The reason why we don't do that is that however good the edits of the person or persons who have been editing from that IP the future edits could come from someone altogether different. I rather doubt that either Newpage patrol or recent changes patrol could function without an effective whitelisting system of people who we've learned make trustworthy edits. So the ban on role accounts is needed for the smooth running of the project. As for promotional usernames maybe even the softblock option is too harsh, but there is a practical issue here, we are short of admins and blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word. Perhaps what we need to do is unbundle rename newbie to all admins, and give them the option of renaming promotionally named accounts with fewer than 100 edits. I would hope that a message such as Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that Fred from PimlicoMuseum might be a promotional username, so I've renamed your account to Fred P if you are unhappy with your new name please file a request here and we can change it again - though we don't want to change it to anything that includes the name of an organisation. WSC On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Does that make sense though? With an account called Starwarrior, say, there is no way of knowing who made the edit either. Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but it's still a name. It tells you about as much as John Smith would. You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a role account, they can just say it wasn't them. With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider: 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any one of them can say it wasn't them. If we are so careless about one half of edits made to Wikipedia, does it make sense to be so stringent about the other half? 2. Even where we have an account name like John Smith and know the account's IP address, it is not trivial to move from that knowledge to identifying the person – especially if the IP address is a proxy, a dynamic IP, or an Internet café in Calcutta. How does having an account name like John Smith help there? 3. It's happened before that several people have shared an account. I can recall a desysop over account sharing. We have no control over that, regardless of what the account name is. Compared to that, identifying the person editing Wikipedia at Monmouth Museum is a cinch. Especially if User:MonmouthMuseumWales says on her user page, This account is operated by Roisin Curran, the Wikipedian in residence at Monmouth Museum. Surely, that would give us as much transparency as we could ever want? In fact, rather more transparency than we have for all our pseudonymous users? I am not saying we should allow role accounts. I am just not convinced by the arguments brought forward here. And I do think that the present admin practice of blocking role accounts on sight is unfriendly and should stop. I was instrumental in getting Xeno to change [[WP:UAAI]] in February 2011 to say that accounts using organisation names should *not* be blocked on sight if they edit productively, but that admins should *talk* to people first. So it's very disappointing to see that this still goes on, especially if the person at the receiving end is someone on a project like Monmouthpedia. Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word. By the way, I do think you've hit the nail on the head here. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI without revealing who they are or putting things in their username. Declaring COIs is a good use for userpages. Not least because userpages can be updated as editors shift employment and their COIs change. In my experience, accounts like that only tend to edit articles about themselves. If I am looking at the article [[Joe's Pizzas]] and I see an editor named User:Joe's Pizzas in the edit history, I know what's what. If it says J. Smith, the link is less obvious. I agree things are different if User:Millie C. from Acme PR makes 2,000 edits a month and runs for admin. If we allowed accounts named after organisations, their edits should be restricted to the organisation's business. If they wanted to do other edits, they should register a second account and disclose the link. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Role accounts
Does that make sense though? With an account called Starwarrior, say, there is no way of knowing who made the edit either. Andreas On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: I thought it was just a matter of accountability. With a role account, there is no way of knowing who actually made an edit. On Apr 29, 2012 2:18 AM, Richard Symonds chasemew...@gmail.com wrote: All, Me and a close friend were having a rather heated debate tonight on the topic of role accounts, and I am hoping you (as a community) can answer my question: Why do we ban role accounts? I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a trawl through all the appropriate pages on meta and enwp, and although I could find out that role accounts *were* blocked, I couldn't see the justification behind it mentioned anywhere I'm not disagreeing with the policy, but I was wondering if anyone knew the reasoning behind it - and why said reasoning isn't included in the policy pages? All the best, Chase ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
