(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, hope that is OK)
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,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there aren't *more* news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or no success with Wikipedia!
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.)
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they are paying you to do that... :D
Even if sold merely as an advisory service with no guarantee there would still be an expectation. (and there are also moral issues tied up in there; dangling the resolution of an issue in front of an individual, who is upset and vulnerable, for a fee..).
Selling advisory services on an one-to-one basis is too much of a minefield!
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.
We do have to be a little careful here what with the current grumblings about COI etc.
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).
Is this something you would be willing to share with us?
My thoughts are that you have the germ of the idea, but are taking it in a direction that runs into numerous problems farther down the line.
OTRS kinda works; I will admit I have seen some replies from Wikipedians that make me cringe at their bluntness. However this is not an unassailable problem.
I would tackle this idea in three ways:
* Invest in OTRS agents; run training sessions (we have already done that once I think...), write training materials etc. * Invest in the OTRS software; it's not entirely fit for our purposes. The concept is not complex, and I feel it would be possible to contribute either to the OTRS software-base, tweak the existing code or even begin from scratch with a custom-built solution.
The third strand would be based on your thoughts about paid support. Rather than offer one-to-one support, I'd suggest training days and support groups (think; Wikipedia Anonymous :)). Based loosely on the format of a morning crash course in Wikipedia and an afternoon QA session, with editors around to help with individual issues.
Just thinking aloud.
Tom
On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, hope that is OK)
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,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or no success with Wikipedia!
Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do that.
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.)
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they are paying you to do that... :D
It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.)
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.
We do have to be a little careful here what with the current grumblings about COI etc.
Yes, being careful is a must!
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).
Is this something you would be willing to share with us?
It's just a scrap of paper with some numbers on it, but I can write it up if you like. I didn't share it when I first wrote it (a couple of weeks ago) because there were still too many unknowns to work out whether it would actually be profitable.
My thoughts are that you have the germ of the idea, but are taking it in a direction that runs into numerous problems farther down the line.
OTRS kinda works; I will admit I have seen some replies from Wikipedians that make me cringe at their bluntness. However this is not an unassailable problem.
I would tackle this idea in three ways:
- Invest in OTRS agents; run training sessions (we have already done that
once I think...), write training materials etc.
- Invest in the OTRS software; it's not entirely fit for our purposes. The
concept is not complex, and I feel it would be possible to contribute either to the OTRS software-base, tweak the existing code or even begin from scratch with a custom-built solution.
The third strand would be based on your thoughts about paid support. Rather than offer one-to-one support, I'd suggest training days and support groups (think; Wikipedia Anonymous :)). Based loosely on the format of a morning crash course in Wikipedia and an afternoon QA session, with editors around to help with individual issues.
Just thinking aloud.
That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to sort it out.
On 3 October 2012 12:51, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, hope that is OK)
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,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little
or
no success with Wikipedia!
Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do that.
Sure, that's an issue. I see where you are coming from (the Roth issue in large part stemmed from the fact that they ended up contacting the wrong place entirely!).
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.)
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they
are
paying you to do that... :D
It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.)
Yes, I suppose.
It's not so easy as that, though, speaking as an OTRS regular. One of two things can happen with regularity; a seemingly innocuous issue gets blown up by editors for no apparent reason, which leads to dramaz. Or, the initial concerns appear quite OK, but once you get onboard discussing with them it turns out they are more complex and fundamental.
I'm also concerned that the target market consists of mainly two types of client:
* One that wants to rewrite large portions of the article * One that wants very minor issues fixed ("Please correct this logo", "Our CEO has changed", "that source refers to someone else!") etc.
Having an upfront meeting with the latter is not worth it, as this will likely take longer than resolving the issue. And the former represents the minefield I mentioned.
I also suspect that the En.Wiki community would reject anyone being able to do any substantive work on articles under such a scheme.
That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to sort it out.
I am actually thinking along those lines... I'm not talking about editor recruitment type things.
But more "hi everyone, these are the Wikipedia policies, and why we have them" and then let them loose with a room full of editors who can sit and work through specific issues. With the benefit that everyone is at educated in at least the rudiments of policy.
Tom
This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to arrive at some clarity about the fundamental issues.
I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_com...
Andreas
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 3 October 2012 12:51, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original
thread,
hope that is OK)
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,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers
there
aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had
little or
no success with Wikipedia!
Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do that.
Sure, that's an issue. I see where you are coming from (the Roth issue in large part stemmed from the fact that they ended up contacting the wrong place entirely!).
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.)
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around
to
someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when
they are
paying you to do that... :D
It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.)
Yes, I suppose.
It's not so easy as that, though, speaking as an OTRS regular. One of two things can happen with regularity; a seemingly innocuous issue gets blown up by editors for no apparent reason, which leads to dramaz. Or, the initial concerns appear quite OK, but once you get onboard discussing with them it turns out they are more complex and fundamental.
I'm also concerned that the target market consists of mainly two types of client:
- One that wants to rewrite large portions of the article
- One that wants very minor issues fixed ("Please correct this logo", "Our
CEO has changed", "that source refers to someone else!") etc.
Having an upfront meeting with the latter is not worth it, as this will likely take longer than resolving the issue. And the former represents the minefield I mentioned.
I also suspect that the En.Wiki community would reject anyone being able to do any substantive work on articles under such a scheme.
That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to sort it out.
I am actually thinking along those lines... I'm not talking about editor recruitment type things.
But more "hi everyone, these are the Wikipedia policies, and why we have them" and then let them loose with a room full of editors who can sit and work through specific issues. With the benefit that everyone is at educated in at least the rudiments of policy.
Tom
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 13:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to arrive at some clarity about the fundamental issues.
I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_com...
Is anyone actually suggesting replacing OTRS? I saw Tom's proposal above as an adjunct to it (which I'm not wild on either, but it's at least defensible)
Replacing it would certainly be a step too far...
Indeed it would. I hope I was clear in defending OTRS as the best way to resolve issues that we currently have, although it needs work!
Tom
On 3 October 2012 13:32, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 3 October 2012 13:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to
arrive at
some clarity about the fundamental issues.
I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_com...
Is anyone actually suggesting replacing OTRS? I saw Tom's proposal above as an adjunct to it (which I'm not wild on either, but it's at least defensible)
Replacing it would certainly be a step too far...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I've left a comment on Jimbo's talk page, as I think Andreas' comment there doesn't reflect what we're discussing on the list.
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 13:32, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 3 October 2012 13:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This is the sort of discussion that should be had on-wiki, just to
arrive at
some clarity about the fundamental issues.
I have raised the topic on Jimbo's talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Replacing_OTRS_with_a_com...
Is anyone actually suggesting replacing OTRS? I saw Tom's proposal above as an adjunct to it (which I'm not wild on either, but it's at least defensible)
Replacing it would certainly be a step too far...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
If anyone is interested, I have written up a fuller description of my idea here:
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tango/Consultancy
Hopefully, people will see that it isn't such a disgusting, money-grabbing idea after all.
I suggest discussion takes place on the talk page, rather than here (it's easier to include people outside the UK community is the discussions that way).
Interesting. I will discuss this more on the talk page, as you ask, but I still think it is infeasible to offer paid consultancy services of this sort.
As an alternative I have written a proposal for "Wikipedia Surgery" sessions: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Surgery
Comments and criticism welcome.
Tom
On 4 October 2012 23:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone is interested, I have written up a fuller description of my idea here:
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tango/Consultancy
Hopefully, people will see that it isn't such a disgusting, money-grabbing idea after all.
I suggest discussion takes place on the talk page, rather than here (it's easier to include people outside the UK community is the discussions that way).
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org