On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 05:19:19PM -0700, George Herbert wrote: Violet Blue is a known quantity to you? sincerely, Kim Bruning

The concerns over Bamkin's involvement in WM-UK and GibraltarpediA seem a little overwrought, but the situation isn't helped by his minimalist approach to public communication - prompted perhaps in part by the accusatory, judgmental tone of his UK questioners. Still, it's too bad he's not more forthcoming. In a Wikimedia-related organization the participants and observers have a preference for over-communicators; the laconic find themselves in hot water.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: 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.ht… http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009241.ht… 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 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ah, that's not helpful, David. To answer Kim - Yes, known quantity, both online and off. She is an active sex and gender issues journalist / commentator / whatever the heck that role is titled now (not just blogger, she is published in several paper venues on a semi-regular basis). She has a long history (along with her at least then-boyfriend) of having gotten into an online tiff with a Wikipedia contributor to her article that escalated to restraining orders and legal threats in real life, though I don't believe any lawsuits were filed for real. There were real name identification, age, and other issues - both privacy issues, and a legal name change and desire not to be known by her (well sourced) original name. She does not like Wikipedia in general or that editor in particular as a result. It's still not clear to me that the editor did anything wrong by then-current standards, though BLP and current standards would potentially be a different story. It was reasonably clear that Violet Blue and her boyfriend or fiancee at the time (whose current status I do not know) edited and discussed confrontationally on-wiki for some time, regarding the incident, along with the real-world legal threats. It's been years, and I believe it's all calmed down, but she evidently and not surprisingly still has a strong and somewhat negative opinion of Wikipedia. She is or was living somewhere in San Francisco but despite knowing a number of people in related communities I have not to my knowledge met her in person. I've been told by some people that she's perfectly community normative (cough) in behavior and reasonableness in person, for that community. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your concern is totally legit Sarah, but before we jump to saying paid advocacy is actually increasing, I think it would be interesting to try and think about whether it's merely that it's more prominent and open. The kind of guidelines that PR orgs and Wikimedians are encouraging, such as being transparent about a COI, could create the misperception that there is more paid advocacy. Maybe it's just that we're actually starting to see people be more open? The thing that scares me the most is the kind of edits uncovered by WikiScanner back in the day: those who are editing with a COI but who are acting in secret. The thing that I don't even want to think about when it comes to paid advocacy is how many skilled sockmasters are writing articles that look okay but are really spam? In short: I think people like Max and Roger, who make public declarations about their identities and conflicts of interest, are not the ones who scare me. We can always find those people and start a conversation with them. Steven

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... or even a path to Roger's door :)) (Sorry, tired.)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Look, David, if a dozen towns express an interest in his services, and offer him a consultancy fee, and he decides he will work with Gibraltar, then Gibraltar go forward and he pockets their fee. The others remain in the queue. Nobody *made* him take Gibraltar, did they?

On 19 September 2012 10:46, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, it's pretty accurate. Roger made the decision to work with Gibraltar and Gibraltar are paying him. Do you really think there is no connection between those two facts? Of course he's working with them because they are paying him - that's the point of paid work.

On 19 September 2012 12:51, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Of course Roger decided who he was going to sign a contract with. Do you think he was forced into it?