There's very little I can say that would add to Doug's articulate and
well-thought-out post, but I welcome Andreas' more substantive post as a step towards
a rational, mature discussion about these projects. I think such a discussion has been
needed for a while, but hasn't been possible until now because of
the entanglement with wider issues about conflicts of interest etc.
Andreas raises some points that are worth addressing. The conflation of roles within the
chapter is not something I'm in a position to opine on, but "the projects'
being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in the press" is a
legitimate concern. Wikipedia must be neutral, and of course that neutrality extends
beyond the text of a given article. Nevertheless, the increased visibility of, say,
Monmouth is an effect of these projects and one reason that local governments may wish to
see such projects in their areas. There's no getting away from that - local
governments aren't motivated by altruism in the same way that Wikipedians are. As for
the controversy at DYK, mistakes were made there. I think it was the result of naivety and
the lack of clear process for this sort of thing at DYK and certainly not of any malice.
Roger was just trying to see that people writing articles got some recognition, as he had
done for years before Monmouth- or
Gibraltarpedia were conceived. I think Roger's naivety wrt conflicts of interest and
volumes of nominations at DYK, and DYK's processes, have both been rectified or are
being rectified.
All that said, we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes,
Gibraltarpedia has its issues. No, those issues are not going to go away with the wave of
a magic wand. But I've been to Gibraltar, and the number of people involved, and the
enthusiasm with which the project is met by residents, cultural institutions, schools, and
at least three different government departments tells me that something is being built
that will outlive the politics surrounding the project, and it has real potential to make
a positive change to the movement without compromising our movement's principles.
None of that is to say that Gibraltarpedia can carry on as though the events of the last
few months never happened (see my first paragraph), but nor is it fatally flawed. It's
also worth pointing out that almost everybody involved is involved as a volunteer and is
contributing to the project and to Wikipedia out of altruism.
Thanks,
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________
From: rexx <rexx(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
My usual optimism can sometimes lead to disappointment, but I think I'd rather have it
that way. Projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia have a huge potential for doing
good work, and they need the community to support and engage with them to make sure they
deliver that good work.
I am pleased to read Andreas' précis of the extent to which he would support projects,
but it's worth fleshing out the positive side of engaging in such projects, either as
volunteers or as a body:
1. There is an opportunity to create many new encyclopedic articles, not only in English
but also in myriad other languages.
2. There is an opportunity to take and publish photographs of notable objects and
people.
3. There is an opportunity to enthuse existing editors and recruit new editors, training
them as we go along.
4. There is an opportunity to create networks to support more projects between interested
groups who share our aims.For example, Monmouthpedia generated many new articles in
multiple languages as well as new photographs; the volunteers' efforts have helped
vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts made are leading to a shift in attitude of the
Welsh Government and academia towards free and open licensing of work that they create or
are custodians of.
Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into North
Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African wikimedians - perhaps
even help to establish new communities of wikimedians where they do not yet exist.
Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest scrutiny
and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the future and I'd
welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet the vision of our
wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are potentially the most valuable.
--
Rexx
On 12 February 2013 13:41, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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_a…
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.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)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
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org