This is the overriding issue.

It is what Roger is doing in Gibraltar - but the issue there more revolves around a) he being a board member and the resulting poor handling the COI (i.e. didn't resign once he had a commercial business in the same scope) and b) the way in which Gibraltapedia interacted on Wikipedia (where it was unclear where his paid and volunteer roles ended).

Any social enterprise would have to delineate these very clearly - probably with seperate accounts at the very least.

Which is also why Fabians thoughts about training related to MediaWiki, rather than Wikipedia specifically, probably has longer legs.

The idea Thomas Dalton raised r.e. offering a support service for Wikipedia is worth thinking about, but is probably too fundamentally undermined to have commercial legs. Realistically it would be better as a WikimediaUK funded service (i.e. "turn up to our open workshops").

The volunteer issue you raise is also a good one; which is why any social enterprise would have to focus on solving problems, rather than training. Or facilitating communication, if you like.

Thinking aloud we could think about packaging all of these sorts of things up to offer free workshops for people with problems to resolve & building on that to offer consultancy services related to MediaWiki and Wikis in general.

But more than anything it's something that needs to be thought through with care given the genuine issues within the community. Any enterprise of this nature should either focus on improving Wikipedia as its primary mission, or focus away from Wikipedia onto Free Knowledge or Wikis in general (and funnel funds back to WMUK etc.).

Tom

On 3 October 2012 13:22, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Again though - and I don't want to shoot the idea down (please don't think I am!) - is this not what Roger did in Gibraltar? 

One would need to be very careful about what sort of training one provided - what happens if the consultancy trained people from, for example, UBS, to edit - and then UBS went and broke rules on Wikipedia by paid editing after the training is finished? 

It'd also be running the risk of upsetting genuine volunteer trainers who aren't being paid for their services. Take, for example, Mr Smith, who went on the Train the Trainers program and travels around in his own time training people how to edit. Mr Jones, on the other hand, travels around charging people for the same training. Mr Smith cannot advertise his services (because he makes no money). Mr Jones can - so Mr Jones gets all the 'customers'. Mr Smith is then disincentivised: he no longer wants to go out and train people, because a.) he feels it's been taken over by a commercial element, and b.) it becomes less fun, because none of the fun customers (like UBS or the RAF) will want to train with a volunteer - they'll want a professional.

Those learning will also be affected: 
  • they'll be paying for something which is free elsewhere (and should really, in my opinion, be free no matter what) 
  • They'll be more likely to see Wikipedia as a 'website to post on, supported by consultants' rather than a community of volunteer editors
  • We'll be helping to legitimise an industry which, at present, is barely tolerated on Wikipedia. 
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here - but remember that some people genuinely have an issue with Wikimedia Fellowships, let alone any sort of consultancy. It's a great idea, but it needs an awful lot of planning - more than went into setting up the charity!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.




On 3 October 2012 12:44, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 October 2012 12:32, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> It would be... tricky to get the idea past the community on Wikipedia,
> though, would it not? I know a good few administrators who delete any paid
> articles on sight.

I should have been clearer - I'm talking about giving advice, and
possibly serving as a liason, not actual paid editing. There are
procedures in place for this kind of thing, using OTRS and talk pages,
but people need help navigating them, that's what this consultancy
would provide.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org