On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In the past, those conversations were short, and
ended in a permaban (cf.
Jimbo's past statements about blocking anyone offering commercial
editing,
cf. Kohs).
Today, the people concerned are chapter trustees and Wikipedians in
Residence.
I would say things have changed.
Precisely. Kohs and his ilk never showed any interest in anything but
themselves, and fully merit permabans. People like Max and Roger may have
conflicts of interest, but at least they've contributed something that
doesn't end in them making a buck. That's how they got in positions like
chapter trustee and Wikipedian in Residence.
Which is not to say that the situation is ideal, nor that Sarah and others
are wrong to be nervous. If someone with a COI did something that was
inappropriate, I think it can and should be dealt with strictly and quickly
by the community, like always. But comments like the one you just made,
which are obviously designed to stir up some kind of moral panic, don't do
us any good.
Steven
Steven,
We know people have been beating a door to Roger's path ever since
Monmouthpedia; there have been enquiries from all over the world from towns
wanting to be the next Monmouth. He gets to decide which town goes forward,
and whichever town goes forward pays him a consultancy fee.
At the same time, the pitch by Roger, Steve Virgin etc. is that a project
like Monmouthpedia greatly benefits the local tourism industry and
businesses, and that the free publicity generated is worth millions of
pounds.
How is it possibly compatible with the Nolan principles* for a Wikimedia UK
director and his private company to profit from such a situation?
I hear the story has hit Slashdot.
Andreas
*