o post conjunto que comentei - não sei se já tinha enviado
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jay Walsh <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Subject: [Wmfall] Recently posted to the WMF blog
To: wmfall(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi folks, a few moments ago WMF and WMUK posted the following to each
others blog. The post focuses on the recent events being discussed in the
press and within the community, and the next steps Wikimedia UK and WMF are
taking to explore the events.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundat…http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundat…
---
*Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK
*
Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related
projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some
observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant
for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English
Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a
trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with
his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of
Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was
effectively managed.
To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to
ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement,
Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint
an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s
governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest.
The review will consider Wikimedia UK’s current governance arrangements,
current internal policies, such as the Trustee Code of Conduct, the Nolan
Committee Requirements, the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Representing
Wikimedia UK policy, any other relevant policies of Wikimedia UK, and best
ethical practices.
Considering specifically the conflict of interest, we will ask the expert
advisor to identify any gaps between how the conflict of interest situation
within Wikimedia UK would ideally have been handled and how it actually was
handled, and to recommend how situations such as this should be managed in
the future. The review will also touch on any activities that may have
blurred work as a paid consultant with work as a Wikipedia editor, but
recommendations for changes to Wikipedia’s policies and practices will be
outside its scope: we leave the broader topic of reviewing Wikipedia’s
editorial policies to the community.
Once the review is completed, it will be reviewed by both the Wikimedia
Foundation and Wikimedia UK and then published.
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation
that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during
this year’s fundraiser.
Wikimedia UK has the benefit of legal and professional advice to assist in
understanding and handling conflicts of interests. The goal of both
organizations in carrying out this review, and Wikimedia UK’s in deciding
to absent itself from the 2012 fundraising campaign as a payment processor,
is to demonstrate that we mutually recognize the importance of handling
conflicts well beyond simple requirements of the law. We understand our
responsibilities to you: the members of Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia
movement, its donors, editors, and readers.
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
_______________________________________________
Wmfall mailing list
Wmfall(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall