This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do
have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points
We all have other things to do. I am trying to shine some light on an
obscured situation as it concerns me. The ethics of what we do is
important. I don't begrudge you refusing to answer further, but you've not
really addressed any of the critical issues.
So to be clear; this training is for people involved
in the project - i.e.
outreach to train potential editors. If so, that
seems a clear conflict of
interest when editing related Wikipedia articles (i.e. you are being paid
by people with a vested interest in those articles).
This isn't a credible argument unless you think I'm hypnotising them.
What isn't credible here? Gibraltar are paying you to provide commercial
services in relation to Wikipedia - it seems to follow, fairly logically,
that articles related to Gibraltar present at least a strong potential for
If this situation is the case, are you implying
that the rest of the
"Gibraltarpedia" project is organised via... a gratis offering from you and
others? By the ministry of tourism? or?? Surely the project is predicated
on the QRpedia plaques and training sessions!
I'm not implying anything and i find your question confusing.
Your comments so far appear to separate your commercial arrangement from
the wider Gibraltarpedia project. I'm trying to establish what, outside of
your commercial offerings, the project consists of and who is organising
Obviously it relies heavily on your paid services, though.
I am interested in why you ignored standard
advice for those with COI's
to interact on the talk page?
I think that if you look at the pages for QRpedia, Monmouthpedia and
Gibraltarpedia then you will see that I do use the talk page to interact
with those pages. Despite some significant errors. So we agree that I'm not
Yes, I saw that. Which is why I think your other issues are more a good
faith oversight, rather than anything else.
Also this does
not address the most pressing concern; which centres
around how Gibraltar approached you, what you told/promised them and so
forth. I am sure you can see there is a distinct difference between talking
to them as a Wikimedia UK director or as a Wikipedian. Indeed; if you've
used your role as a WMUK director in any reference to this project that is
an ethical breach (the media are reporting you as such, but whether that
is inaccuracy on their part, or quoted from your PR materials I do not
I was approached as the person "who did Monmouthpedia" by Gibraltar's
Director of Heritage. This wasn't correct obviously but was the original
approach to me. You are correct in assuming the press frequently make
mistakes about job titles. Its bad enough explaining that I don't work for
a company called Wikipedia. It isn't necessary to spread confusion - it
Thank you. I take it this means you didn't proffer Wikimedia UK's support
as part of that agreement (as Andreas has highlighted r.e. the Geovation
bid)? Or indeed promote the project to Wikimedia UK.
1. That's right it hadn't happened
2. Yes M'pedia hadn't completed - still
hasnt. 3. Fallacy? Sorry your argument is deeply flawed.
How is it flawed? We elected you based on the existing situation; which is
that an independent project, with later WMUK support, resulted in
you receiving consultancy payment. Am I incorrect in that summary (which is
what we were told at the time)?
Not the best situation (slight unethical), but it's only a small sum and I
don't begrudge you being paid for the time.
However; the situation has now moved on significantly, and you appear to be
launching a commercial venture to provide consultancy services around
Wikipedia. You did not indicate this goal at the time of the AGM and new
ethical issues emerge in relation to your board role.
4. Lack of demarcation - I agree. I frequently end up
doing WMUK work in
my own time. How do you and Tom D avoid it? Sorry rhetorical question as I
don't expect a reply.
Pish. You volunteered for a prominent and public role in a fairly cash-rich
charity. You can't claim a lack of time when scrutiny is levelled.
I despise evasiveness of this sort.
# No - I have referred ethical dilemmas to the board.
I have offered my
resignation twice and it has not been accepted. You will see that this
email arrives from my private email. I do not use my wikimedia UK email.
This is probably unnecessary but it makes sure people know that they are
talking to me and not me as a wikimedia UK director.
Thank you, this makes me much happier :) And a lot could have been saved
simply by stating this clearly from the outset.
# Ethics of the community ? My ethics are aligned with
mission. I am pleased by the credit I have received for my work from people
who I respect.
As I mentioned; I think you hold a conflicted position when editing
articles about Gibraltar, so it would be best to comply with community
practices and operate full transparency/disclosure on-wiki. But that is
more a matter for discussion on-wiki.
Thanks for your time! I charge mine at ~£100/hour, so I hope you appreciate
that taking 10 minutes to look into these situations, and write these
emails, are not insignificant matters to me, and hope that stresses how
deeply I care about our ethics.