Hi,
There are a variety of ways this can be organised. I have been involved in one initiative in the area of Law Centres.
You can have simple subsidiaries, or the one we set up in Tower Hamlets is a co-operative, combining aspects of a consumer co-op and a workers co-op.
We would need to discuss how we wanted to handle the various relationships - between WMUK, the Social Enterprise, clients, consultants, trainers all in the context of the wider Wikimedia communities.
This might seem a a daunting task, but it's our own fault for making WP so successful!
I am particularly interested in developing a service to deliver training in use of Mediawiki technology with reference to specific platforms - i.e.Wikipedia and its sister sites, but also other projects such as Wikivet:
http://en.wikivet.net/Veterinary_Education_Online
We could develop accredited training which fits in with the National Qualifications Framework. We could also have less formal training available.
I think we should be aware that the release of a new user-friendly WSYIWYG interface could make Mediawiki more attractive amongst businesses.
My personal preference is the co-operative model - which I feel fits the ethos of Wikipedia very well. There are ways in which this could be set up as a Community Interest Company, giving operational control to those developing the service, while at the same time ensuring an income stream to the charity. We could also include providing trading gratis where the circumstances make this most appropriate.
Essentially this would require the Board making a decision that it was interested in looking into the idea and setting up a steering committee to take the matter forward. This could be done with a limited amount of officer time. In fact there may well be sources of funding we could access to help develop clearly defined options which could be presented for general discussion in the community (which might well mean listening to people based outside the UK).
all the best
Fabian (user:Leutha)
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:41:04 +0100 From: Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] social enterprise Message-ID: CADvxJeGC1sA5AchfZ_UfJFZEuKHWdfhWQngrx=qwuzKuEVGZ=g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Fabian,
Thanks for this very interesting idea. I've also thought that there are a number of opportunities in this space derived from the wikimedia projects that aren't entirely suited to a registered charity.
A number of UK charities manage to combine an enterprise through a "trading subsidiary". Would this idea work through such a vehicle?
Regards,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to thank Thomas Morton for his well thought explanation addressed to Roger (Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:51:10 +0100). It covered a number of points I felt need addressing and Tom put them in a useful and tactful way - much better than I could have hoped to do.
However, I would like to address some ramifications of this.
This is one reason why charities are often run by older, retired, types
who
do not need to go out and earn a living.
Quite so. However, one of the consequences of the phenomenal success of WP is that the potential development of where we are now has created space for activity beyond that which WMUK as a charity is best placed to carry out.
a) Wikiversity has a great potential, however the development of such a repository of Open Educational Resources (OERs) will be very slow without people being paid - not so much for editing but for delivering teaching which uses WV as a platform, creating OERs free for other people to use. The dynamic for this is quite different from WP and Wikicommons.
I have not been involved in all the sister projects, but suspect that they will each have their own dynamic, which needs to be addressed in its own terms.
b) Linked to a) is the delivery of training in how to use WP. It seems to me very straight forward to see WV as an ideal platform for this. There is also much to be learnt from WikiEducator, which uses a Mediawiki in conjunction wit the moodle software.
c) Another aspect of this is that I have noticed that some of the people who attend WMUK training sessions are people who are employed by learned societies as Social Media Officers. While I find volunteering to train other volunteers quite attractive, when it comes to giving time freely in order help in the training for paid workers of organisations I am confident that i am not the only person who finds this a bit awkward. Likewise as we welcome academics who stipulate that their students achieve certain goals in order to pass a course, this to me creates a market for delivering training outside a volunteer - to -volunteer framework.
Aside from the problems which have arisen from Roger being a trustee, I think the work he has done is amazing and really innovative. I would like to see it continue. However what I feel would really facilitate this is the creation of a not-for-profit social enterprise which would provide a structured way in which innovations like QRpedia could be placed in relation to both WMUK, WMF and the broader community.
I feel that our community has an amazing range of diverse talents, and that if the possibilities provoked by WPs success are to be realised, then we need to develop a way in which the ethos of unpaid editing of WP itself can be balanced with other roles which are emerging which are peripheral to editing but which can greatly enhance WP and its sister projects.
I hope that the recent experiences at WMUK will stimulate a discussion about how such a social enterprise might be set up, how the ethos of collaborative working and sharing of resources might be taken forward, how this can be done in a way which does not disrupt the very success which WP has enjoyed, and how such a social enterprise can contribute towards fundraising for WMUK to deliver its charitable goals.
If such a discussion is got going now, there is some prospect that we could have a concrete proposal which has been mulled over by the community in time for the next AGM.
As Tom said:
Bottom line; you (as a board), we even, fucked up. Not maliciously, but very badly. You lost sight of the wider objective.
But it's not something to beat each other up over. Learn from it, make improvements, move on.
I am proposing this as a way of moving on in a way which keeps people like Roger with their brilliant ideas involved but not as trustees.
all the best
Fabian (User:Leutha)
The idea of setting up some kind of social enterprise is a very interesting one. One other service it could sell, somewhat more controversially, is advice on dealing with problems with Wikipedia articles. I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't really work and people need more support than just an email address they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and procedure, and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a paid service.)
It would be better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying to offer such services. I did try and draw up a rough business plan for such a consultancy, and I think it could turn a profit. The big unknowns were how much we could charge (I used some PR consultancy chargeout rates I found online as a rough estimate) and how much non-chargable work would be required in order to attract business (if we get people just knocking on the door without any reals sales work required, then it would easily be profitable).
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.
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 12:07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of setting up some kind of social enterprise is a very interesting one. One other service it could sell, somewhat more controversially, is advice on dealing with problems with Wikipedia articles. I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't really work and people need more support than just an email address they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and procedure, and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a paid service.)
It would be better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying to offer such services. I did try and draw up a rough business plan for such a consultancy, and I think it could turn a profit. The big unknowns were how much we could charge (I used some PR consultancy chargeout rates I found online as a rough estimate) and how much non-chargable work would be required in order to attract business (if we get people just knocking on the door without any reals sales work required, then it would easily be profitable).
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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.
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
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.ukwrote:
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
They should have the mop removed.
On 03/10/12 12:07, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It would be better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying to offer such services.
Sounds very much like GNU and Cygnus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions
Gordo
I am particularly interested in developing a service to deliver training in use of Mediawiki technology with reference to specific platforms - i.e.Wikipedia and its sister sites, but also other projects such as
This is a really good idea!
It neatly applies our specific domain knowledge, but side-steps issues related to paid editing etc.
The training doesn't have to relate to Wikipedia at all! I know quite a few companies who are interested in using a Wiki internally, for example.
Tom
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
Essentially this would require the Board making a decision that it was interested in looking into the idea and setting up a steering committee to take the matter forward. This could be done with a limited amount of officer time.
The board would have to consult the Wikimedia Foundation and the English Wikipedia community on this and would be ill-advised (particularly in light of recent events) to go ahead with this decision without their support. In particular, jimbo's recent signpost article [1] seems fairly opposed to this direction of travel.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-01/Paid_ed...
If you're serious about taking this forward, I think you need to flesh out the proposals and see how they fit in with en-wp policies and statements of Foundation board members before it can be submitted to the WMUK board.
Why don't you set up a wiki page to gather ideas?
Regards,
On 03/10/12 11:53, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
I am particularly interested in developing a service to deliver training in use of Mediawiki technology with reference to specific platforms - i.e.Wikipedia and its sister sites, but also other projects such as Wikivet:
I am also interested.... I have tried to promote Mediawiki in community projects and community archives.
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org