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
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@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.