On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com> wrote:
So nice to agree.... with Jimbo.

Paid work as Trustee is not against Charity Commission rules. We agreed that previously.

But to take on Monothopedia and Gib-Pedia? And stay on as a Trustee?

It was noted that he sits out of discussions on such projects.

Time to sit out. For good, Roger? And carry on the good work (but not as a Trustee)?

I'm sorry, but I agree with Jimbo as well on this. It's simply not appropriate for board members to do private business on the strength of their board membership. 

This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.

Take coverage like this article here:


"The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success." 

As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK. 

I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and pioneering project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission. But Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder.

Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join the ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of the community, without the shelter of WMUK.