My understanding is that there has been an ongoing delay in the transferring of the intellectual property to Wikimedia UK, this was the situation nearly 3 months ago. As far as I am aware there is still a delay in this on roger's side. Seddon

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:04:58 +0100 From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit.

But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my understanding of QR codes then all the QR codes that we are encouraging people to use point to that domain and are currently repointed to Wikipedia articles. So if we are going to promote QRpedia we need to know that the domain is part of the movement.

WSC

On 17 September 2012 13:01, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

I assume that people are finding the details out online, and they're then assuming that we're the best people to contact (confusion between 'Wikimedians from the UK' and 'Wikimedia UK'). As far as I know, no-one's been given our contact details in relation to the project, and the site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Achievements gives info@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address.

Richard SymondsWikimedia UK0207 065 0992 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0207 065 0992 end_of_the_skype_highlighting 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 17 September 2012 12:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

Accidentally sent offlist...

On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

...

Good morning Tom.

...

...

Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient

...

by their very nature but in answer to your specific question:

...

The board agreed that we would be happy to supply 'learn to edit' booklets

...

and and some office support. In reality this means referring any callers on

...

to Roger whether from the Media or just people interested in the project.

...

I hope this helps,

Thank you for clarifying that. Are people being intentionally given

WMUK's contact details, or are people just finding them online and

assuming that WMUK is the best place to contact regarding

Gibraltarpedia?

_______________________________________________

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

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

Dear all,

Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated.

1. "Paid editing" To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing". We have never actively decided not to have one, we just don't - this is really the Wikipedia community's call not ours.

2. Gibraltarpedia Wikimedia UK's sole involvement with this to date has been the despatch of a few booklets. Really, with most organisations, we'd just have sent the booklets, and it's only because of Roger's position that it took a board discussion to do so.

For the future - at the meeting last weekend, the Board decided that it would be an interesting project to get more involved with. We looked at a draft memorandum of understanding that would enable us to be clear about the terms of engagement with the project in future, and thought it needed some more work. Part of that work would involve defining shared expectations and establishing what Wikimedia UK's involvement would add - and if we found that "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist destination" was all Gibraltar cared about, I doubt we would proceed any further.

I would also point out that we have not received any proposals for us to spend any money or use more than a trivial amount of staff time on this.

3. Conflicts of interest Our conflict of interest policy is available here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy and is supported by the Declarations of Interest register here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest. The Conflict of Interest policy is modelled quite closely on Charity Commission guidance and is very clear that we can't pay our board members, and that if they have a conflict of interest on a particular item they have to recuse themselves. We have followed this policy in all discussions related to the subjects mentioned in this thread.

There is some debate on the Board about whether we need to develop this policy further, and members' views are welcome.

4. QRpedia QRpedia.org is owned by Roger Bamkin and Terence Eden, who have been maintaining it, along with qrwp.org (where the "qrpedia" links resolve), as volunteers. An agreement between Roger and Terence on the one hand and Wikimedia UK on the other is in the works, shouldn't take more than a few weeks to finish off, and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of Wikipedia-linked QR codes in future.

Thanks,

Chris Chair, Wikimedia UK

On 17/09/12 20:34, Chris Keating wrote:

...

...

...

...

and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of

Wikipedia-linked QR codes in future.

This issue has always been on my mind. The use of a code requires a method to decode and produce a result. In general terms, QR Codes resolve to *text* *strings* and those strings tend to begin "http://" and then QRPedia codes have a second level on indirection (the language switching).

Can we feel sure that for the next 5, 10 or 25 years QR codes will be in common use (the legacy), and that Wikipedia linked QR Codes will resolve and send the user to the relevant article? We assume that Wikipedia will last for another 25 years! If QRPedia codes don't work in the future, then they will be a very widespread piece of negative advertising.

Gordo

I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct?

If so, what I don't understand is this: what is the point of signing over the intellectual property rights to Wikimedia UK? How will this benefit Wikimedia UK? And why are they signed over to Wikimedia UK, rather than the Wikimedia Foundation, or the public domain? Will Wikimedia UK ever be able to benefit from holding the intellectual property rights in a way that the rest of the Wikimedia movement and the rest of the world will not?

Andreas

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM, joseph seddon < life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

My understanding is that there has been an ongoing delay in the transferring of the intellectual property to Wikimedia UK, this was the situation nearly 3 months ago. As far as I am aware there is still a delay in this on roger's side.

Seddon

---

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:04:58 +0100 From: werespielchequers@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit.

But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my understanding of QR codes then all the QR codes that we are encouraging people to use point to that domain and are currently repointed to Wikipedia articles. So if we are going to promote QRpedia we need to know that the domain is part of the movement.

WSC

On 17 September 2012 13:01, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

I assume that people are finding the details out online, and they're then assuming that we're the best people to contact (confusion between 'Wikimedians from the UK' and 'Wikimedia UK'). As far as I know, no-one's been given our contact details in relation to the project, and the site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Achievements gives info@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address.

Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0207 065 0992 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

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 17 September 2012 12:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

Accidentally sent offlist...

On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk

wrote:

...

...

Good morning Tom.

Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be

sufficient

...

...

by their very nature but in answer to your specific question: The board agreed that we would be happy to supply 'learn to edit'

booklets

...

...

and and some office support. In reality this means referring any

callers on

...

...

to Roger whether from the Media or just people interested in the

project.

...

...

I hope this helps,

Thank you for clarifying that. Are people being intentionally given WMUK's contact details, or are people just finding them online and assuming that WMUK is the best place to contact regarding Gibraltarpedia?

---

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

_______________________________________________ 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

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.comwrote:

I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT

...

License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct?

Correct.

To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org.

Thanks Chris. That makes more sense. :)

Andreas

Clearly what is needed, with some urgency is:

* A clear statement from Roger as to what renumeration he is receiving, and what agreements he has in place with the Gibraltar tourist board etc. This will go to clearing up the confusion.

* A clear statement about WMUK's intended involvement with this process.

* Roger and his business associates to recuse from editing articles in relation to this; and/or to clearly declare a COI when interacting over them.

As I noted before - this is a hot button issue on Wikipedia, and if not handled delicately the community is liable to come crashing down like a ton of bricks on Roger & WMUK. The last thing we need is *another* board member banned from Wikipedia :S

From my prespective there are serious ethical questions about this

situation. And I think going forward WMUK can't realistically have any association with the project.

Roger also, I think, needs to clearly engage with the Wikipedia community over the product/service he is selling and how he will deal with the ethical/COI situation surrounding that.

Seriously though; how did this situation get so far along without someone raising concerns!!!

Tom

On 17 September 2012 23:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT

...

License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders or Wikimedia UK for permission first, correct?

Correct.

To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org.

Thanks Chris. That makes more sense. :)

Actually, one more question. Chris Owen says on the DYK talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_...

that Roger is apparently being *paid for the use of these domains*, which I understand link the users of mobile devices to Wikipedia content. Does that mean that, once the transfer of these sites to Wikimedia UK is complete, Wikimedia UK will be charging customers of these sites to generate revenue? Or will QRpedia thereafter be a free encyclopedia?

Or is Chris Owen altogether mistaken about QRpedia being a paid service?

Andreas

---

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

On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred to or introduced as a WMUK project.

(e.g. this Wikimania video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg )

Obviously that is a concerning facet that needs to be cleared up also.

That video just says WMUK is looking forward to supporting the project (which it is - that's why an MoU is being discussed). It doesn't say it is a WMUK project (at least, I didn't notice anything saying that).

There has been some confusion about WMUK's involvement, though, certainly. In particular, the project has been repeatedly linked to Monmouthpedia in a way that suggests it is being organised by the same organisation. The "GibraltarpediA" mark doesn't help - in fact, it probably infringes on the "MonmouthpediA" mark. I know there were some issues with the use of the Wikipedia mark, which I believe were resolved with the WMF. I'm not aware of WMUK granting a license to use the "[Placename]pediA" mark, though.

On 17/09/12 23:23, rexx wrote:

He's mistaken. There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org http://qrpedia.org and qrwp.org http://qrwp.org. Commentators also need to differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the domain names. WMUK's interest in QRpedia is in finding ways to ensure that the service provided remains secure and free in perpetuity.

But surely the domains are hard coded in the QRPedia codes? Therefore it is both the domain name and the server that make up the service?

I have lost a domain in the past, and just got it back within the grace period. It was not my fault.....but it was not pretty.

Income? Interesting. Somebody could fork Wikipedia and start making money.....

Gordo

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.ht...

Gordo

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-**documents.co.uk/document/** parlment/nolan/nolan.htmhttp://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm

Gordo

______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles.

Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440

Which:

a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK

I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I suggest we quickly resolve the following issues:

* Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect & they approached the Monmouthpedia orgnaisers? * If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to think they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach? * Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar contract?

I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a statement be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity.

Tom

On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

...

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-**documents.co.uk/document/** parlment/nolan/nolan.htmhttp://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm

Gordo

______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

-- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies

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). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

---

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

I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in contravention of our Username policy on promotional names - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names

Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not ask for a change of name, but given the circumstances I think a name change might be a good idea.

Doug Weller

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-ch...

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to become volunteer editors. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on wiki to date.

Andreas

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles.

Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440

Which:

a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK

I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I suggest we quickly resolve the following issues:

• Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect & they approached the

Monmouthpedia orgnaisers?

• If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to think

they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach?

• Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar

contract?

I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a statement be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity.

Tom

On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

...

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

...

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.ht...

Gordo

---

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

-- Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies

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).

Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

---

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

---

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

Name change of my user account? That is an odd request. I did look at the policy and it says Talk to the user

If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. If you want, you can use the {{subst:uw-usernamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-username }} or {{subst:uw-coi-usernamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-coi-username }} template for this.

I'm sorry if I'm not replying to all the inquiries here, but there are a lot. I chose Victuallers Ltd as its the name I am associated with and I wasn't aware that it had a promotional value. Changing my user name is not an issue if it causes hassle. (I would in retrospect have chosen my own name to edit under.) Can some send me the link of where this user name debate is in progress?

I realise that this is a very interesting debate but do try and remember that these facts that are being discovered are public knowledge. The project was announced at Wikimania, no less, with a video that set out the projects plans and expectations. The video made it clear that the minister for tourism was involved and that this was not a WMUK project. The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al).

The ownership of the QRpedia domains has been documented in WMUK minutes and it was obvious when I made a presentation at the Wikiconference in 2011 (before I was elected as a director). As Chris has noted the transfer of the intellectual property to WMUK has run on for months. There is no conspiracy. The rights to QRpedia are intended as a gift and cannot be just demanded.

Those who voted for me and/or attended the last wiki AGM/conference are aware that I was (and am) offering my expertise as a consutant. These are the same skills as I was paid for at the end of the Monmouthpedia project. All of this was overseen by the board. The COI conflict meant that I gladly stepped down as Chair but I was asked to stay on as a board member. The board agreed to manage the COI conflict, which I am obviously pleased to comply with.

I'm hoping that a lleast clears up some of the debate.

regards

Roger Bamkin (prev. known as Victuallers?)

On 19 September 2012 07:59, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:

I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in contravention of our Username policy on promotional names - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names

Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not ask for a change of name, but given the circumstances I think a name change might be a good idea.

Doug Weller

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea

address?:

...

3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green

tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with

any

...

AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist

or

...

local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or

where's

...

the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old

photographs,

...

which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged.

They

...

would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could

write

...

about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in

order

...

to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to

build

...

it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their

area

...

MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the

National

...

Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also

shown

...

their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia

has

...

a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in

your

...

solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the

whole

...

article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number

of

...

Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example,

an

...

User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W"

shows

...

that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with

his or

...

her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg

and

...

English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-ch...

...

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the

pair

...

behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to become volunteer editors. You can see it as

an

...

editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no

discussion

...

of this on wiki to date.

Andreas

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles.

Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440

Which:

a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK

I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I suggest we quickly resolve the following issues:

• Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect & they approached

the

...

...

Monmouthpedia orgnaisers?

• If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to

think

...

...

they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach?

• Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar

contract?

I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a

statement

...

...

be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity.

Tom

On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

...

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

...

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.ht...

...

...

...

...

Gordo

---

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

-- Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies

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).

Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

---

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

---

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

-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk

---

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

On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

I would ask that you resign from the board.

Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attending a couple of absolutely splendid local outreach events I was inspired to actually join the UK chapter and subscribe to this mailing list.

In the two or three months I've been lurking here, I've witnessed two campaigns for board members to resign, and I have to say I'm beginning to wonder quite what sort of organisation I've joined. I know almost nothing about the background to either of these cases, and to be honest I don't really think I want to know. Maybe the critics do have a point, after all. Certainly the trustees of a charity should behave with decorum and integrity, so I wouldn't want to gainsay any legitimate attempts to hold them to account. But it seems that all the necessary information was made available to the voting members well before the election, and they collectively decided that they'd still rather elect these people to the board. So in the absence of compelling further evidence, which this doesn't appear to be, I'd have thought that's that until the next election.

I'm on the board of a small educational charity myself, and I'm very glad that I and my fellow trustees don't have to put up with constant sniping from the sidelines, calls for our resignation, or suspiciously-timed articles appearing in the national press. If we did, I'd almost certainly just say to hell with it, and walk away.

I suppose my question is: does this sort of politicking actually serve the aims of Wikimedia UK at all, and if not could it perhaps stop soon? It just seems as though all this infighting does far more damage to the reputation of the chapter than the fact that one of the trustees was temporarily banned, under somewhat questionable circumstances, from editing Wikipedia, or that one of the other trustees might have got a handful of free leaflets in connection with a pretty cool-sounding outreach initiative he's working on.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got a stack of other things to do this afternoon so I'm going to get back to them.

Nicholas

On 19 September 2012 15:43, Nicholas Jackson dr.nicholas.jackson@gmail.comwrote:

On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

I would ask that you resign from the board.

Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attending a couple of absolutely splendid local outreach events I was inspired to actually join the UK chapter and subscribe to this mailing list.

In the two or three months I've been lurking here, I've witnessed two campaigns for board members to resign, and I have to say I'm beginning to wonder quite what sort of organisation I've joined. I know almost nothing about the background to either of these cases, and to be honest I don't really think I want to know. Maybe the critics do have a point, after all. Certainly the trustees of a charity should behave with decorum and integrity, so I wouldn't want to gainsay any legitimate attempts to hold them to account. But it seems that all the necessary information was made available to the voting members well before the election, and they collectively decided that they'd still rather elect these people to the board. So in the absence of compelling further evidence, which this doesn't appear to be, I'd have thought that's that until the next election.

I'm on the board of a small educational charity myself, and I'm very glad that I and my fellow trustees don't have to put up with constant sniping from the sidelines, calls for our resignation, or suspiciously-timed articles appearing in the national press. If we did, I'd almost certainly just say to hell with it, and walk away.

I suppose my question is: does this sort of politicking actually serve the aims of Wikimedia UK at all, and if not could it perhaps stop soon? It just seems as though all this infighting does far more damage to the reputation of the chapter than the fact that one of the trustees was temporarily banned, under somewhat questionable circumstances, from editing Wikipedia, or that one of the other trustees might have got a handful of free leaflets in connection with a pretty cool-sounding outreach initiative he's working on.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got a stack of other things to do this afternoon so I'm going to get back to them.

Nicholas

Yes, indeed. It's an interesting question.

There is a site called Wikipediocracy which critiques Wikipedia and associated organisations. I *think* (but am uncertain of the timeline) this issue stemmed from comments raised there.

I'm a member of that site; for a number of reasons, but partly because I agree with some of the members that Wikipedia is corrupt in places and partly because it is always worth interacting with your critics.

Certain other people are members of that site, who tend to be a lot harder in their criticism and disdain for Wikipedia.

There is a balance over what issues of concern need to be taken forward as true concerns, and which ones are simply blown up out of proportion. Even then, genuine problems can sometimes be over egged by the WO community.

I'm concerned about transparency and openness - we are not as transparent as we could be (based on our ideals) so I tend to push in those areas.

It has made me unpopular; I get an appreciable amount of hate mail and anonymous threats. Following the Fae incident this ramped up somewhat. I get cold shouldered by others in our community because I am critical.

This is par for the course.

But on this issue; I am happy to press Roger for clarity about his commercial enterprise, and how the board is responding (i.e. I had no idea he offered to resign twice - that is the sort of information we should be sharing!!). I'm not pushing for his resignation, I am pushing for a clearly delineated situation where everyone is aware of the lie of the land.

Small charities are often subject to corruption; both nefarious and accidental. I've seen it happen numerous times (and picked apart the pieces for court afterwards). I am eager we build our charity on more progressive lines; that exhibit exemplary ethics and professional interactions.

It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just didn't know about it. And perception of our organisation is one of the problems we need to address.

Tom

On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

...

It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just didn't know about it.

You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption in the real world in the general case (although it is a standard assumption on Wikipediocracy).

I'm not claiming that at all. I am pointing out that there was a lack of public knowledge - and that "corruption" was therefore not eradicable as an option.

...

And perception of our organisation is one of the problems we need to address.

This problem appears to be one with your perceptions, i.e. that you make a default assumption of massive corruption and then expect the people you're assuming this of to treat your assumption as reasonable.

Not at all; for example, the media have perceived that Roger is a director of WMUK, and that this project is related.

Tom

Very well said.

This is an important issue, and it's quite right for the members to discuss it, but they could do so in a way that smacks slightly less of a vendetta. And if the campaign to force Roger to stand down succeeds, we will rapidly find ourselves with an alarmingly small board.

For my personal two cents, it appears to me that Roger is being paid for volunteer coordination and project management. If I'm honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with the situation, but we all have to make a living. Sadly, altruism doesn't put food on the table or a roof over one's head.    Harry Mitchell

http://enwp.org/User:HJ

Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell

________________________________ From: Nicholas Jackson dr.nicholas.jackson@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2012, 15:43 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

I would ask that you resign from the board.

Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attending a couple of absolutely splendid local outreach events I was inspired to actually join the UK chapter and subscribe to this mailing list.

In the two or three months I've been lurking here, I've witnessed two campaigns for board members to resign, and I have to say I'm beginning to wonder quite what sort of organisation I've joined.  I know almost nothing about the background to either of these cases, and to be honest I don't really think I want to know.  Maybe the critics do have a point, after all.  Certainly the trustees of a charity should behave with decorum and integrity, so I wouldn't want to gainsay any legitimate attempts to hold them to account.  But it seems that all the necessary information was made available to the voting members well before the election, and they collectively decided that they'd still rather elect these people to the board.  So in the absence of compelling further evidence, which this doesn't appear to be, I'd have thought that's that until the next election.

I'm on the board of a small educational charity myself, and I'm very glad that I and my fellow trustees don't have to put up with constant sniping from the sidelines, calls for our resignation, or suspiciously-timed articles appearing in the national press.  If we did, I'd almost certainly just say to hell with it, and walk away.

I suppose my question is: does this sort of politicking actually serve the aims of Wikimedia UK at all, and if not could it perhaps stop soon?  It just seems as though all this infighting does far more damage to the reputation of the chapter than the fact that one of the trustees was temporarily banned, under somewhat questionable circumstances, from editing Wikipedia, or that one of the other trustees might have got a handful of free leaflets in connection with a pretty cool-sounding outreach initiative he's working on.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got a stack of other things to do this afternoon so I'm going to get back to them.

Nicholas

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

Hi Roger,

Thanks for responding to some of the points!

I realise that this is a very interesting debate but do try and remember that these facts that are being discovered are public knowledge. The project was announced at Wikimania, no less, with a video that set out the projects plans and expectations. The video made it clear that the minister for tourism was involved and that this was not a WMUK project.

You mean the video that ends with the words "Wikimedia UK are looking forward to supporting the project"?

The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al).

So to be clear; this training is for people involved in the project - i.e. outreach to train potential editors. If so, that seems a clear conflict of interest when editing related Wikipedia articles (i.e. you are being paid by people with a vested interest in those articles).

If this situation is the case, are you implying that the rest of the "Gibraltarpedia" project is organised via... a gratis offering from you and others? By the ministry of tourism? or?? Surely the project is predicated on the QRpedia plaques and training sessions!

I am interested in why you ignored standard advice for those with COI's to interact on the talk page?

Also this does not address the most pressing concern; which centres around how Gibraltar approached you, what you told/promised them and so forth. I am sure you can see there is a distinct difference between talking to them as a Wikimedia UK director or as a Wikipedian. Indeed; if you've used your role as a WMUK director in any reference to this project that is an ethical breach (the media are reporting you as such, but whether that is inaccuracy on their part, or quoted from your PR materials I do not know).

Those who voted for me and/or attended the last wiki AGM/conference are aware that I was (and am) offering my expertise as a consutant. These are the same skills as I was paid for at the end of the Monmouthpedia project. All of this was overseen by the board. The COI conflict meant that I gladly stepped down as Chair but I was asked to stay on as a board member. The board agreed to manage the COI conflict, which I am obviously pleased to comply with.

This new project had not happened then. Monmouthpedia had not even launched fully! This is argument is a fallacy, just because the situation was acceptable/accepted several months ago does not apply indiscriminately to all future situations!

As Thomas Dalton pointed out the other day; the deeply concerning issue is the lack of demarcation between your role as a Wikipedian, your role as a WMUK director and your commercial Wiki-Towns business.

The only really key concerns for me are:

* Whether you have misused your position as trustee to further your commercial consultancy * Whether (speaking as a Wikipedian) you have violated the ethics of the community during this project

Some comments on the above would be appreciated!

Tom

On 19 September 2012 07:59, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:

...

I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in contravention of our Username policy on promotional names - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names

Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not ask for a change of name, but given the circumstances I think a name change might be a good idea.

Doug Weller

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea

address?:

...

3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green

tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local

groups

...

and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be

geotagged.

...

The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with

any

...

AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User

(tourist or

...

local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or

where's

...

the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia

and

...

multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old

photographs,

...

which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged.

They

...

would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to

create

...

new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their

chapel,

...

and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could

write

...

about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in

order

...

to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to

build

...

it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their

area

...

MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the

National

...

Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also

shown

...

their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia

has

...

a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in

your

...

solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the

whole

...

article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number

of

...

Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example,

an

...

User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W"

shows

...

that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with

his or

...

her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg

and

...

English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would

be

...

geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-ch...

...

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the

pair

...

behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians

to

...

get members of the public to become volunteer editors. You can see it

as an

...

editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no

discussion

...

of this on wiki to date.

Andreas

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles.

Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440

Which:

a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK

I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I

suggest

...

...

we quickly resolve the following issues:

• Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect & they approached

the

...

...

Monmouthpedia orgnaisers?

• If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to

think

...

...

they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach?

• Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar

contract?

I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a

statement

...

...

be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity.

Tom

On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

...

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com

wrote:

...

...

...

...

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to

all

...

...

...

...

Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.ht...

...

...

...

...

Gordo

---

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

-- Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. Mobile (0044) 7803 505

169

...

...

...

tweet @jonatreesdavies

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).

Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

---

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

---

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

-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk

---

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

-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2

---

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

This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points

We all have other things to do. I am trying to shine some light on an obscured situation as it concerns me. The ethics of what we do is important. I don't begrudge you refusing to answer further, but you've not really addressed any of the critical issues.

So to be clear; this training is for people involved in the project - i.e.

...

outreach to train potential editors. If so, that seems a clear conflict of interest when editing related Wikipedia articles (i.e. you are being paid by people with a vested interest in those articles).

This isn't a credible argument unless you think I'm hypnotising them.

What isn't credible here? Gibraltar are paying you to provide commercial services in relation to Wikipedia - it seems to follow, fairly logically, that articles related to Gibraltar present at least a strong potential for COI.

...

If this situation is the case, are you implying that the rest of the "Gibraltarpedia" project is organised via... a gratis offering from you and others? By the ministry of tourism? or?? Surely the project is predicated on the QRpedia plaques and training sessions!

I'm not implying anything and i find your question confusing.

I apologise.

Your comments so far appear to separate your commercial arrangement from the wider Gibraltarpedia project. I'm trying to establish what, outside of your commercial offerings, the project consists of and who is organising this.

Obviously it relies heavily on your paid services, though.

...

I am interested in why you ignored standard advice for those with COI's to interact on the talk page?

I think that if you look at the pages for QRpedia, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia then you will see that I do use the talk page to interact with those pages. Despite some significant errors. So we agree that I'm not ignoring them.

Yes, I saw that. Which is why I think your other issues are more a good faith oversight, rather than anything else.

...

Also this does not address the most pressing concern; which centres around how Gibraltar approached you, what you told/promised them and so forth. I am sure you can see there is a distinct difference between talking to them as a Wikimedia UK director or as a Wikipedian. Indeed; if you've used your role as a WMUK director in any reference to this project that is an ethical breach (the media are reporting you as such, but whether that is inaccuracy on their part, or quoted from your PR materials I do not know).

I was approached as the person "who did Monmouthpedia" by Gibraltar's Director of Heritage. This wasn't correct obviously but was the original approach to me. You are correct in assuming the press frequently make mistakes about job titles. Its bad enough explaining that I don't work for a company called Wikipedia. It isn't necessary to spread confusion - it makes itself.

Thank you. I take it this means you didn't proffer Wikimedia UK's support as part of that agreement (as Andreas has highlighted r.e. the Geovation bid)? Or indeed promote the project to Wikimedia UK.

...

1. That's right it hadn't happened 2. Yes M'pedia hadn't completed - still

hasnt. 3. Fallacy? Sorry your argument is deeply flawed.

How is it flawed? We elected you based on the existing situation; which is that an independent project, with later WMUK support, resulted in you receiving consultancy payment. Am I incorrect in that summary (which is what we were told at the time)?

Not the best situation (slight unethical), but it's only a small sum and I don't begrudge you being paid for the time.

However; the situation has now moved on significantly, and you appear to be launching a commercial venture to provide consultancy services around Wikipedia. You did not indicate this goal at the time of the AGM and new ethical issues emerge in relation to your board role.

4. Lack of demarcation - I agree. I frequently end up doing WMUK work in

my own time. How do you and Tom D avoid it? Sorry rhetorical question as I don't expect a reply.

Pish. You volunteered for a prominent and public role in a fairly cash-rich charity. You can't claim a lack of time when scrutiny is levelled.

I despise evasiveness of this sort.

# No - I have referred ethical dilemmas to the board. I have offered my resignation twice and it has not been accepted. You will see that this email arrives from my private email. I do not use my wikimedia UK email. This is probably unnecessary but it makes sure people know that they are talking to me and not me as a wikimedia UK director.

Thank you, this makes me much happier :) And a lot could have been saved simply by stating this clearly from the outset.

# Ethics of the community ? My ethics are aligned with the Wikimedia mission. I am pleased by the credit I have received for my work from people who I respect.

As I mentioned; I think you hold a conflicted position when editing articles about Gibraltar, so it would be best to comply with community practices and operate full transparency/disclosure on-wiki. But that is more a matter for discussion on-wiki.

Thanks for your time! I charge mine at ~£100/hour, so I hope you appreciate that taking 10 minutes to look into these situations, and write these emails, are not insignificant matters to me, and hope that stresses how deeply I care about our ethics.

Tom

Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually.

Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and facetious. However if I am creating or editting Wikipedia articles then you can be sure that I am not being paid and its in my own time.

HTH Roger

On 19 September 2012 20:19, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

On 19 September 2012 15:33, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:

...

This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points

I'm afraid being busy doesn't excuse you from being accountable. While you may not value this conversation, if it is important to members then it has to be important to you.

...

4. Lack of demarcation - I agree. I frequently end up doing WMUK work in

my

...

own time. How do you and Tom D avoid it? Sorry rhetorical question as I don't expect a reply.

That's not a rhetorical question, it is a facetious question. All of my Wikimedia-related work is done in my own time because I am not paid for anything relating to Wikimedia. If I were paid to do something relating to Wikimedia, then I would be very careful to distinguish between my paid work and my voluntary work. That is what you are failing to do.

---

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

Tom, I'm not criticising you. I very often edit wikipedia to de-stress or whilst trying to resolve more difficult problems. The problem of demarcation can be a tricky one as to which task you are doing if you resolve one problem whilst doing another. If its a pure 9 to 5 job then it can be simpler, but many of us are finding a working day somewhere outside the hours of sleep.

best

On 19 September 2012 21:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

On 19 September 2012 20:46, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually.

Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and facetious. However if I am creating or editting Wikipedia articles then

you

...

can be sure that I am not being paid and its in my own time.

I often do work for my employer outside of regular office hours. It is (in theory!) my own time and I don't get paid any extra for it. That doesn't mean I'm not working for my employer when I'm doing that work. Demarcation between paid and voluntary work isn't as simple as the clock striking 5pm.

---

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

Tom, Roger has clearly stated already in this thread:

"The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al)."

You really can't tell him that "Gibraltar are paying you to help get lots of good articles about their country on Wikipedia" when he's already told you that's not the case. I hope you can see that it is not Roger's paid job to edit articles about Gibraltar, and you ought to be prepared to accept that Roger knows more about what Gibraltar is paying him for than the uniformed peanut gallery.

Those who know Roger know that his background is in teaching and training. Why is it so difficult for the small but vocal minority to understand that those skills are what he will be selling, not paid editing or advocacy? - surely it is only those who must wilfully leap to the worst possible conclusions because their agenda prevents them from accepting the truth.

I've only been half following this, but

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l:

• My understanding is that qrpedia.org 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'm not offering that WMF would host it; I don'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).

In the messages I've read (not all), it has been stated at least twice that the process transferring this to WMUK (i.e. exactly what is being asked for) is ongoing, and has been for some time (held up by complicated legal issues, rather than a lack of desire from either party).

How many times do the same questions need to be answered?

(feel free to forward this to wikimedia-l, I don't subscribe to that list)

---- Chris McKenna

cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna

The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery

The minutiae of the contract are unimportant. The purpose of it is very clear. When it gives to conflicts of interest, you need to interpret things quite broadly. Just because it isn't explicitly spelt out in the contract doesn't mean there isn't a conflict of interest. On Sep 20, 2012 12:18 AM, "rexx" rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

Tom, Roger has clearly stated already in this thread:

"The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al)."

You really can't tell him that "Gibraltar are paying you to help get lots of good articles about their country on Wikipedia" when he's already told you that's not the case. I hope you can see that it is not Roger's paid job to edit articles about Gibraltar, and you ought to be prepared to accept that Roger knows more about what Gibraltar is paying him for than the uniformed peanut gallery.

Those who know Roger know that his background is in teaching and training. Why is it so difficult for the small but vocal minority to understand that those skills are what he will be selling, not paid editing or advocacy? - surely it is only those who must wilfully leap to the worst possible conclusions because their agenda prevents them from accepting the truth.

-- Doug

On 19 September 2012 23:39, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

...

Roger, you're not getting it. Gibraltar are paying you to help get lots of good articles about their country on Wikipedia. When you edit articles about Gibraltar, as you have been doing, then regardless of what time it is when you do it or your motivations for doing it, you are doing your paid job.

Whether something falls under your paid work or not depends primarily on what it is you are doing, not the circumstances of your doing it. On Sep 19, 2012 11:32 PM, "Roger Bamkin" victuallers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Tom, I'm not criticising you. I very often edit wikipedia to de-stress or whilst trying to resolve more difficult problems. The problem of demarcation can be a tricky one as to which task you are doing if you resolve one problem whilst doing another. If its a pure 9 to 5 job then it can be simpler, but many of us are finding a working day somewhere outside the hours of sleep.

best

On 19 September 2012 21:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:

...

On 19 September 2012 20:46, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually.

Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and facetious. However if I am creating or editting Wikipedia articles

then you

...

can be sure that I am not being paid and its in my own time.

I often do work for my employer outside of regular office hours. It is (in theory!) my own time and I don't get paid any extra for it. That doesn't mean I'm not working for my employer when I'm doing that work. Demarcation between paid and voluntary work isn't as simple as the clock striking 5pm.

---

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

-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2

---

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

---

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

Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people how to use Wikipedia, what villainy and wickedness! I'm not surprised that Roger isn't dignifying this nonsense with a direct response, and I can't say I blame him either.

As the minutes and disclosure statements show, Roger has been pretty clear about this with the board and with the members at the AGM, and the information you are dredging up is all on the public record. If there is a grand conspiracy here to secretly "a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment", then it's a pretty inept one. Rather than Roger resigning, I think it would be better if you just stopped trolling this list.

Regards, Craig Franklin

On 18 September 2012 23:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-ch...

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to become volunteer editors. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on wiki to date.

Andreas

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles.

Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440

Which:

a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibraltar approached WMUK

I appreciated this is the media, so inaccuracey is likely. But I suggest we quickly resolve the following issues:

• Did Gibraltar approach WMUK, or is this incorrect & they approached the

Monmouthpedia orgnaisers?

• If they did not approach WMUK, did they think, or were they led to think

they were approaching WMUK by whoever they did approach?

• Has Roger used his position as WMUK director to obtain this Gibraltar

contract?

I'm AGF that nothing untoward has happened here, but I suggest a statement be issued with some urgency to clear these matters up. Or it may well backfire on the charity.

Tom

On 18 September 2012 08:55, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

...

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents.

On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

...

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees?

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.ht...

Gordo

---

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

-- Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies

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).

Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

---

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

---

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

Andreas Kolbe

I think bullying you is very risky Kolbe as you have half a dozen equally warped friends who do little else but tear into Wikipedia and Wikipedians at every possible opportunity. Indeed, I believe at least one or two are actually claiming publicly to be professional journalists taking money for articles which basically have a theme of tearing into the Wiki projects and targeting community members at every possible opportunity. Would he need to put this on his User page as a Declaration of Interest so that other Wikipedians know that he has a paid for agenda when talking to them?

Your orchestrations of Wikipediocracy’s rather pathetic attempts to see conspiracy and subterfuge where there is none does you no service and people should think seriously when talking to you in any Wikipedian forum as your track record suggests you are unlikely to use what you hear for good.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17779#p17779 (Mr Kolbe is the blonde guy 2-3 down from the top on the left for those keen to be on their guard if he comes calling) And the whole of this site is dedicated to tearing down people and undermining the whole Wiki Project, if any of you reading this are unclear.

You and your little chums decided I was liable to be ‘up to something’ without a single shred of evidence. But I suppose Wikipediaocracy does not need evidence and that would simply be cumbersome, particularly when you have tame journalists in the States who’ll print any claptrap you tell them, which you can then hold up as conclusive proof of something that does not exist. I think it highly amusing to see your chums speculating on whether gaps in my editing record and small bursts of edits mean I was paid sums of cash for practising editing by moving French text from the French Wikipedia to the English stub about a town where my Mum-in-Law lives and where my wife was born.

(see your site’s recent trawl over my own website in screen grab below).

I spent three years of my life trying to get a Chapter functioning in the UK so that we could build relationships with institutions, encourage people to learn, encourage people to pick up ICT skills and think about how they can apply all that is good about Wikipedia and the other projects to their lives. My business was effectively put on hold, ticking over during that time. Although I was a Director and owner of that business I and it never so much as promoted itself on any occasion to anyone anywhere when I was working. So get your creepy sad little friends off my case. The Chapter actually owes me money. I took no expenses during the first year of its existence with me on the Board and I have not submitted expenses for the work I carried out February to May this year.

Your ridiculous fellow conspiracy theorists have said my PR links are some kind of evil proof of me cashing in on my connections. Let’s kill that one off now too. Jimmy Wales went to see a big PR agency last January after outing them as doing paid for editing. In attendance were PRCA & CIPR people who were very unhappy at the complete disconnect between the PR world and ours and wanted to kick a dialogue off to see if there was any hope in hell of sorting this out. I started that dialogue. I told them THEY had to show good faith and start doing something for us before we’d even begin to consider them as anything other than ‘dodgy and dubious.’ They agreed. The two PR groups then asked some individual PR people to work Pro-Bono for us on promoting Monmouthpedia. This is what happened. The CIPR also talked to the younger social media PR crowd amongst its members and asked them to get a working paper together for discussion – so that OUR community and their community could begin to talking to try and bridge the unbridgeable divide that may well divide us from the PR world. Note ‘talking’ – not taking cash, not having freebies – nothing.

You and your crowd are a cancer undermining the Wiki Projects. The perpetual attacks on people devoting their time for free will ultimately result in no one coming forward to stand for the Board as idiots from this site will be looking at their Directorships, trolling their website looking for a word here or there out of place or whipping up a incompetent journalist to write utter nonsense about them and then holding it up as some kind of major discovery of a plot to usurp donors money for personal gain.

I personally liked and was proud of achieving things for the benefit of the chapter – working with a leading member to achieve charitable status. Organising Jimmy Wales’ 10th Birthday of Wikipedia celebration talks in Bristol in January of last year. Persuading people to give freely of their time to promote an excellent world first in Monmouth. Do you know I’ve never seen nearly 300 major articles across 38 countries about something Wikipedia has done all positive across a 3-5 day period? Have you?

I know you are your Wikipediocracy chronies can boast the reverse and that you’ve got tonnes of negative coverage. But that to me suggests how warped you are your chronies sets of values are. If you had a shred of decency you’d walk away from a set of projects that you seem to despise.

Before I get another 10 pages on Wikipediocracy for being honest about what you and your tiny band do, let me stress this is a personal view.

Steve Virgin

From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 20 September 2012 12:21 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@wikimedia.org.au wrote:

Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people how to use Wikipedia, what villainy and wickedness! I'm not surprised that Roger isn't dignifying this nonsense with a direct response, and I can't say I blame him either.

We are not just talking about teaching people how to use Wikipedia. We are talking about people being paid to teach members of the public to edit Wikipedia, for projects that in some cases are openly described and sold as marketing initiatives. Does your chapter have programmes like that?

As the minutes and disclosure statements show, Roger has been pretty clear about this with the board and with the members at the AGM, and the information you are dredging up is all on the public record. If there is a grand conspiracy here to secretly "a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment", then it's a pretty inept one. Rather than Roger resigning, I think it would be better if you just stopped trolling this list.

Don't try to bully me. I voted for Roger in this year's board election. That was before the Geovation bid, and before he became a paid consultant for the government of Gibraltar – a fact which the Spanish daily of record, El País, pointed out this morning is not noted on his Wikipedia user page. That's an oversight that should be fixed.

The El País article is currently on the elpais.com front page (not sure about the paper edition). Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided.

http://elpais.com/

Andreas

Seen this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/

James

Trolls just like thrill of tearing things down they live for it

Steve

From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Farrar Sent: 20 September 2012 16:20 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible

to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided.

For someone in the public eye, no matter how properly they behave, a person with an axe to grind can always spin an appearance of impropriety.

And let's say Roger does resign: who's the next target on your list?

On Sep 20, 2012 4:27 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com

wrote:

...

On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly

possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided.

...

For someone in the public eye, no matter how properly they behave, a

person with an axe to grind can always spin an appearance of impropriety.

"The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediAis

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 oughtto be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives,not to promote separate business goals."

– Erik Möller, September 19, 2012

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html

Sad that someone so high in the movement would fall for the soon of those who want to destroy it.

...

And let's say Roger does resign: who's the next target on your list?

That is simply nonsense.

No, it isn't.

Grow up you moron Andreas –

This talk was in September 2011 – I know I was there -Roger had no consultancy till this year (2012) so what was he “selling” oxygen, snake oil? Monmouthpedia did not exist it was many months way. Vouchers were given for free by museums to encourage people to edit.

His comments are simply descriptions of what happened – how would you explain what happened in words of one syllable that prevent idiots like you from spinning nonsense like this?

From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 20 September 2012 17:51 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Here is a video of a presentation openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM

Quotes:

"Can we help put Bristol on the global map longer term, that's why we want to talk to you today." [3.25]

"Roger's going to tell you all about Derby Museum, and what we did for them." [3.40]

"We partnered Derby Museum. [...] We thought we'd pick on one small museum and give it a lot of it, national attention, even international attention, into one museum, just to see what kind of effect we could have on a museum, how we could affect its profile." [6.23]

"We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias [... English, French, Polish, Russian ...] It's giving us more hits to Derby Museum's web page, so it's actually going from our page, clicking through to their web page, it's fulfilling our mission to educate and to share information around the world, and it's raising the interest and status of the city." [12.22]

"It's a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map." [17.41]

I am not comfortable with this sales pitch – especially when it is combined with private consultancy contracts for those making it. It is not consistent with the spirit and ideals of the project I signed up to more than six years ago, and with the spirit and ideals of Wikipedia as communicated to the public.

And it is arguably an exploitation of volunteer editors for personal profit. There is a telling passage in the latter part of the presentation about how creating massive amounts of text in multiple languages would have cost a lot of money, and how, just by advertising "prizes of some books and a £50 book voucher" on Wikipedia, 100 articles were created for the project in the space of one week, at no cost.

Today, even after the brouhaha all over the European press, another Gibraltar DYK ran on the Wikipedia main page.

Andreas