I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so about
the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I saw as an
unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. I'm very
disappointed to see the latest press release I believe that the statement
on my talk page on the English, Catalan and Simple Wikipedia supplies some
In retrospect we could all give the board and me better advice. I have
tried to remain loyal to you, the mission, and the board. I have made less
money working for "the mission" then I would have done elsewhere, and I
think I have also shared in extending our reach. I've visited many
countries and talked with five of six ministers from Gibraltar, Wales and
the British Parliament about WMUK. You know I worked as an unpaid
wikipedian in residence and you may have guessed that I turned down paid
work last year to concentrate on leading the WMUK board during my last
term. That was costing me too much money and so with the board's agreement
I stood down so that Monmouthshire County Council could make the
exceptional step of paying me. They did not do this lightly and they had to
get special agreement from their elected members that in this case it was
worth stepping outside their normal employment procedures to save
Monmouthpedia. This is well documented.
As my statement shows both the board and the Foundation should have been
aware of the public statements that were made. I have heard it claimed that
the Foundation were unaware - but I resigned as chair of the UK chapter.
Someone must have read the reason. I was very clear when you re-elected me
as a board member that I had and would continue to have business interests
like Monmouthshire County Council. (I have to eat). We may have been
mistaken, but it was a joint and informed decision.
It seems a long time ago when I was in Haifa and we were told that the
Foundation did not want WMUK to take part in last years fundraiser. But we
did and that made us several hundreds of thousands of pounds. Our current
exec can take a lot of credit for achieving that.
On 28 September 2012 23:41, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There were plenty of large countries on that list,
attention is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's
On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
> > There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
> > What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's
where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors
will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their
donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their
money at the same time.
> What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries
the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los
of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had
just given money to.
> The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would
recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a
registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have
The main difference here is, I believe, that the UK donor base is much
the countries whose payment processing was taken over by WMF
last year. And they speak English. Therefore the media outcry from the
confusion is likely to be much louder.
From a regular reader-donor's point of view, being confused about where
money went to is almost certainly worse than learning that some
trustee is involved with a conflict of interest scandal, weirdly, between
multiple projects all to do with Wikipedia.
Wikimedia UK mailing list
Wikimedia UK mailing list