Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html</a>
</div><div><br></div><div>---o0o---</div><div><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">Roger&#39;s been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list
(which is publicly archived):

<a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009235.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009235.html</a>
<a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009241.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009241.html</a>

He also updated his declaration of interest on Wikimedia UK&#39;s website
to assert that his contract with Gibraltar does not include paid
editing:
<a href="https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin">https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin</a>

But (personal opinions only):

- IMO the video shown at Wikimania didn&#39;t make the distinction of
roles sufficiently clear, and the confused media reporting should have
been in Wikimedia UK&#39;s interest to correct (much like it has been in
WMF&#39;s interest to correct journalists who confuse WMF/Wikia). Were
attempts made to do so?

- The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA
is clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is
real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit ought
to be done first and foremost to serve that organization&#39;s objectives,
not to promote separate business goals.

Yes, it&#39;s possible to try very hard to keep these things separate (and
it appears that Roger&#39;s followed the guidelines the chapter&#39;s come up
with, and previously stepped down as chair to address this), but it
still creates a perception that for-profit and non-profit interests
are in contention, especially when projects like GibraltarpediA which
are conceived as part of an individual&#39;s business activities are
considered for the chapter&#39;s programmatic portfolio, and when that
individual is publicly identified with that organization&#39;s brand and
mission throughout.

Beyond obvious financial relationships, the intangible associations
(&quot;I am a trustee of Wikimedia UK&quot;) matter when conflicts of interest
are considered.

- My understanding is that <a href="http://qrpedia.org">qrpedia.org</a> is still under individual
control, rather than chapter control. Is that correct? If so this is a
bit problematic, and it would be good to secure control of it (I&#39;m not
offering that WMF would host it; I don&#39;t think the value/impact case
for QR codes is sufficiently strong for that, but it would be good for
at least a chapter to take responsibility for it for now).

It would be good to get some more clarity from the UK chapter on its
official position on these issues. I don&#39;t think this is a big
&quot;scandal&quot;, it&#39;s the normal kind of confusion of roles and
responsibilities that occurs often in small and growing, volunteer-led
organizations. Everyone involved is clearly first and foremost
motivated by contributing to Wikimedia&#39;s mission. But if this is not
fully and thoroughly addressed there&#39;s a risk that it will continue to
reflect poorly on Wikimedia.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation</pre></div>