---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
De: "Jay Walsh" <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org>
Data: 28/09/2012 17:17
Assunto: [Wmfcc-l] Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia
UK
Para: "Communications Committee" <wmfcc-l(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.
WMF will continue to take any media questions or response over this if you
get them, and please do share any coverage you spot out on the web. Thanks.
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
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
Pessoal,
alguém vai divulgar o evento na Wikipédia e outros projetos Wikimedia?
Não sei se faz sentido, mas para mim parece melhor pessoas bastante
envolvidas com cada projeto divulgar (por exemplo, Claudio na
Wikipédia, Helder no Wikilivros, Ozy ou Ale na Wikiversidade etc.).
Pode ser uma boa oportunidade das comunidades (que para mim não
deveria ser mais de uma) começar a conversar mais entre si. O que
acham?
E poderíamos criar um banerzinho legal, como o Vini fez para o último
WikiRio. Até sábado à estarei ocupado com algumas oficinas sobre a
Wikipédia para professores em Porto Alegre, então terei tempo para
ajudar com isso domingo à noite.
Abraços,
Tom
Pagina para escrever o texto de forma colaborativa. Apesar das recomendações argentinianas, acho mais conveniente cada um escrever o que acha e assinar. Coisa simples e não páginas e páginas. Discussões entre usuários na aba Discussão ;)
http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Imprensa/Entrevista_-_Sergio_Matsuura_(O_Globo…
Rodrigo
Sabe qual o seu problema Argenton ? Este grupo aqui está muito abaixo de vc. Só vc entende o que é colaboração, só vc trabalha, só vc faz isto e aquilo. Qualquer edição, qualquer sugestão, qualquer coisa que qualquer usuário recomende que vc não aprove, vc critica de forma exagerada e muitas vezes ofensiva.
Não fui procurar locais mesmo para o evento ou datas. Sabe pq ? Pq eu e o CB perguntamos trocentas vezes, aqui e particularmente, se vc realmente estava com algum local confirmado ou se poderíamos também trazer as opções de outros lugares, mesmo em lugares fora de SP. Desde o ano passado quem se candidatou a ir atrás ? Quem falou que estava tudo engatilhado ? Então porque eu ou qualquer outro iríamos atrás de algo ? Será que é pq somos vagabundos e vc trabalhador ? Então seja competente de assumir que o que vc buscava não deu certo e que tudo ficou para a ultima hora. Isto não ocorreu apenas aqui mas em diversos lugares e eventos que apenas o "bonitinho" tinha o telefone e contato. Então seja mais transparente e quando se propuser a algo, abra os contatos com antecedência.
Aproveite também que só vc sabe e faz coisas por aqui, e assuma a minha "vaga" no CD. Aguentar vc torrando nossa paciência pelos próximos 2 anos, colocando defeito em tudo o que for feito não é minha ideia de colaboração.
Atenciosamente,
Oi Tom,
Tô com o banner feito pra Campus Party Recife, ele fala de vários
projetos da Wikimedia, os maiores. Posso levá-lo.
Abs,
Jonas
> From: Everton Zanella Alvarenga <everton137(a)gmail.com>
> E poderíamos criar um banerzinho legal, como o Vini fez para o último
> WikiRio. Até sábado à estarei ocupado com algumas oficinas sobre a
> Wikipédia para professores em Porto Alegre, então terei tempo para
> ajudar com isso domingo à noite.
>
> Abraços,
>
> Tom
--
@Jonas_agx
<http://twitter.com/jonas_agx>
"Edivaldo Moura Santos cresceu no interior do estado de São Paulo,
Brasil. Filho de colonos que trabalhavam nas terras daquela região,
Edivaldo descobriu seu amor pela Física no primeiro ano do Ensino
Médio, na pequena cidade de Itupeva. Isso o levou a se empenhar em
fazer bacharelado e, depois, Ph.D. em Física. Tornou-se professor da
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. No ano passado, Edivaldo
aderiu ao piloto do Programa Wikipédia no Ensino, no Brasil, e ele
está feliz em ver seus alunos melhorarem as informações sobre Física
disponíveis na Wikipédia em português."
Continua:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/27/edivaldo-moura-santos-brazil-professor
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Wikimedia Brasil
Wikimedia Foundation
É esse o jornalista?
Ele respondeu, Rodrigo?
Vou ver pra quando é.
Alguém quer falar? Castelo falou com ele?
Bjs
---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
De: "Sergio Matsuura - Economia O Globo - Digital e Mídia - Personale" <
sergio.matsuura.personale(a)oglobo.com.br>
Data: 26/09/2012 15:13
Assunto: Entrevista para O GLOBO
Para: <ocastro(a)wikimedia.org>
Olá, Oona
Estou fazendo uma matéria sobre credibilidade na internet, focando em "fake
reviews" e posts pagos. Mas também vou falar sobre o caso Roger Bamkin.
Seria possível conversarmos um pouco sobre isso?
Muito obrigado,
Sérgio Matsuura
21-9965-3124
21-2534-5641
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AVISO IMPORTANTE / IMPORTANT
NOTICE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Esta mensagem pode conter informações confidenciais e somente o
indivíduo ou entidade a quem foi destinada pode
utilizá-la. A transmissão incorreta da mensagem não acarreta a perda
de sua confidencialidade. Caso esta mensagem
tenha sido recebida por engano, solicitamos que o fato seja comunicado
ao remetente e que a mensagem seja eliminada
de seu sistema imediatamente. É vedado a qualquer pessoa que não seja
o destinatário usar, revelar, distribuir
ou copiar qualquer parte desta mensagem. Ambiente de comunicação
sujeito a monitoramento.
This message may include confidential information and only the
intended addressee have the right to use it as is, or
any part of it. A wrong transmission does not break its
confidentiality. If you've received it because of a mistake or
erroneous transmission, please notify the sender and delete it from
your system immediately. This communication environment
is controlled and monitored.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarah Stierch <sstierch(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at
Wikipedia
To: wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr…
Concerned Wikipedians raised the alarm Monday that two trusted men -- one
a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, the other a respected Wikipedian
In Residence -- are allegedly editing Wikipedia pages and facilitating
front-page placement for their pay-for-play, publicity-seeking clients.
Jimmy Wales is not pleased.
It began this week when an interesting discussion started on the DYK ("Did
You Know") discussion
page.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of…>
Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn page
describes him as a high-return-earning PR
consultant<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>,
appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the
resources of Wikipedia's GLAM
WikiProject<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM>(Galleries,
Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his
client's project.
Bamkin's current client is the country of
Gibraltar<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>
.
In August, Gibraltar was featured as a Wikipedia DYK front page feature an
astonishing seventeen
times<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/August>-
that's an unusual frequency of every 2-3 days.
Other than the Olympics, it is the only repeated topic throughout the
month.
The "Did You Know" section on Wikipedia's Main Page publicizes new or
expanded articles - the publicity viewership on Wikipedia's front page
is estimated
in the hundreds of millions per
month.<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyOriginal.htm>
*Wales: "wildly inappropriate"*
When Wikipedia's founder was told about Bamkin's client in relation to
Wikimedia UK, Jimmy Wales
wrote<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikime…>:
It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else
in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to
take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on
the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. - *Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54,
17 September 2012 (UTC)*
At the same time Bamkin's consulting work as a representative of Wikimedia
Foundation reared its ugly head, Wikipedia community members exposed the
SEO-focused, PR-strategy Wikipedia page editing business run by respected
GLAM editor Max Klein.
Both Klein and Bamkin are "Wikipedians In
Residence,<http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence>"
a role held by Wikipedia editors in high esteem who liaison with galleries,
libraries, archives and museums to facilitate information between the
organizations and Wikipedia community editors.
Wikipedians In Residence are not allowed to operate if there are conflicts
of interest and are not allowed to edit the pages of the organization they
liaison with.
Maximillion Klein <http://notconfusing.com/about/> runs a consulting
business called "untrikiwiki <http://untrikiwiki.com/>" whose
self-description explains:
A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed to
be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for
Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise
in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze
surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than
eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community
connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services.
When the concerned Wikipedia editors asked Jimmy Wales about untrikiwiki
(in the thread about Roger Bamkin) Wales commented:
I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If what
you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it. It's
disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012
*No specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing"*
At this time, there is no Wikimedia UK policy against "paid editing" for
Wikipedia pages, though Jimmy Wales has
said<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#St…>that
paid editing is against Wikipedia values and policy.
However, there's no doubt that the lack of a clear policy casts a shadow
over the public's perception of Wikipedia's ethical standing.
If PR editing from Wikipedia's representatives -- paid or not -- were to be
openly tolerated, Wikipedia's reputation will most certainly be harmed in a
way that is different from the harm done from vandalism or covert PR
editing.
In the case of Roger Bamkin, a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising
himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs
and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client.
Bamkin's LinkedIn page
<http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>states:
*Roger Bamkin's Experience*
Consultant Victuallers Ltd May 2012 - Present (5 months)
I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered >
£2m paybeack on £50K investment.
Bamkin's formal Declaration of Interests for Wikimedia
UK<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>
states
there is no conflict of interest (COI) with his role, access to Wikipedia
resources and contract with Gibraltar as there is no official relationship
between Gibraltar and Wikimedia UK.
But to the outside eye this might appear as a financial conflict of
interest among the people who are handling the money donated to support
Wikipedia. Not to mention how unfair it is.
You may be wondering how the country of Gibraltar ended up in the middle of
a Wikipedia PR editing scandal. To answer that question, we can visit
Wikipedia.
Monmouthpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthpedia> is a Wikipedia
project that links Wikipedia and the town of Monmouth in South Wales by the
use of smartphone scannable QR codes.
As the story is told, the idea for Monmouthpedia came when Roger Bamkin and
Steve Virgin (former Wikimedia UK board member, current PR consultant
and Bamkin's
business partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
gave a TEDx talk about their Wikipedia QR-code project
QRpedia<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM&feature=share>.
>From the audience, Wikipedia editor Steve Cummings (also Bamkin's business
partner <http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
suggested they "do a whole town."
Wales Online wrote<http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/07/23/monmouth-wikipedia-…>:
He [Bamkin] 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.
Enter Gibraltarpedia. In a feature yesterday, BBC News explained
Gibraltarpedia <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19544299> as the way in
which Gibraltar is using QR codes and Wikipedia to target and attract
tourists.
While not as straightforward as untrikiwiki's open offer to navigate tricky
Wikipedia conflict of interest rules as a service for for paying clients,
Gibraltarpedia may be a cool idea but it still comes off as little more
than free advertising for tourism - setting up a walled garden of articles
all with an eye to promoting tourism - and potential investment - in
Gibraltar.
Seventeen features on Wikipedia's front page in one month is in equal
measures strangely admirable, somewhat saddening and completely worrying.
>From a 2009 statement by Jimmy
Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#St…>:
It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their
services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will
personally block any cases that I am shown. (...)
(...) Would we block a good editor if we found out after the fact is a very
different question. We have traditions of forgiveness and working with
people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - things are
never so simple. Of course it is possible to imagine a situation where
someone can and should be forgiven... because that's very common.
That's not the same as saying that it would ever be ok, as a matter of
policy. Just imagine the disaster for our reputation.
I think many people would consider the idea of "Did You Know" - and
Wikipedia's front page - being successfully used in a for-profit commercial
venture by any entity to be harmful to Wikipedia, reputation or otherwise.
But then again, Wikipedia and alleged conflicts of interest are not known
to be handled with practicality - or clarity. Just ask Philip
Roth<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797>
.
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
<<
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
<<
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
Alguém aí está por dentro do caso Roger Bamkin/WM-UK/"Gibraltarpedia" e
gostaria de dar uma palavrinha sobre esse assunto? Há um pedido no OTRS
para uma entrevista para O Globo. Conheço o Roger e os projetos anteriores
dele (Derby/Monmouthpedia) e pretendo responder, mas queria mais opiniões...
CB
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alison M. Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Gibraltarpedia etc.
To: Communications Committee <wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
One thing we don't seem to have commented upon (and refuted) is the
perceived 'favouritism' that the current coverage of Gibraltarpedia,
Monmouthpedia, etc has suggested exists. So far everything reads like they
had "special treatment" endorsed by WMUK and others.
Thing is - bypassing the whole 'paid editing' thing - we actually
*encourage* specialist subject 'attacks' and usually call them editathons
or projects. One example I noticed on the BBC News website today was the
upcoming work with the Royal Institution (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19675169 ) and there have been
*plenty* of others around the world.
So far the coverage seems slanted that Gibraltar and Monmouth got something
'more' than we usually offer. Maybe we should be pointing out that we
welcome this behaviour; it isn't "special treatment".
AlisonW
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l