It has come to my attention that Roger Bamkin has been editing articles on Gibraltar:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
and nominating and reviewing them at DYK:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing. That is not strictly against Wikipedia policy (although it is certainly frowned upon) but I'm pretty sure it is against WMUK policy for board members or staff to edit Wikipedia in relation to chapter activities. Since GibraltapediA is being supported by the WMUK office (as approved in the 8 September 2012 board meeting), I think it qualifies as a chapter activity for this purpose.
I invite Roger to make a statement on this list explaining his relationship with the Government of Gibraltar and how it relates to his Wikipedia editing, and to give assurances that all such conflicted editing will cease immediately.
I don't see any problem with Roger's position.
In the one case you cited below, Roger has trespassed a DYK rule, was shouted at for violating the rule rather than his own conflict of interest, and retracted his own review.
Paid editing and editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden by Wikipedia. All GLAM, education, and "Wikipedia town" outreach depend precisely on such premise. It only becomes a problem if such editors push their agenda in ways which violate Wikipedia policies, and such problems should be dealt according to the rule violation and independently of the conflict of interest.
It is an unacceptable personal attack to use Roger's conflict of interest alone to bar his DYK reviews to other Gibraltar-related articles which he hasn't contributed significantly to or nominated. It follows that it is wrong to call for him to "give assurances that all such conflicted editing will cease immediately".
Deryck
On 16 September 2012 20:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It has come to my attention that Roger Bamkin has been editing articles on Gibraltar:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
and nominating and reviewing them at DYK:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing. That is not strictly against Wikipedia policy (although it is certainly frowned upon) but I'm pretty sure it is against WMUK policy for board members or staff to edit Wikipedia in relation to chapter activities. Since GibraltapediA is being supported by the WMUK office (as approved in the 8 September 2012 board meeting), I think it qualifies as a chapter activity for this purpose.
I invite Roger to make a statement on this list explaining his relationship with the Government of Gibraltar and how it relates to his Wikipedia editing, and to give assurances that all such conflicted editing will cease immediately.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 16/09/12 20:02, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing.
And in no way conflicts with his legal status as a Trustee?
Gordo
Dan Murphy on Wikipediocracy asked,
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17594#p17594
---o0o---
I'm feeling more than usually dim. Is this the story? "Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests."
If so, wow.
---o0o---
His question was based on the draft minutes of the 8 September meeting here
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes_8Sep12&oldid=28591#2.1...
which said,
---o0o---
Gibraltarpedia update / MOU - Roger (25 mins)
Roger updated the board on Gibraltarpedia, and explained how he would like to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Wikimedia UK. This would not involve the transfer of any funds, but would mean that Wikimedia UK would offer in-kind support in the form of press coverage and various merchandise.
*DECISION: It was agreed that the office can support Gibraltarpedia with in-kind contributions, but not funds*
---o0o---
I understand the minutes are still being edited, but surely, we can assume that the decision outlined there was indeed taken at the 8 September meeting.
And if so, then I have to say it looks to me very much like Dan's summary was correct. If it isn't, what exactly about it is untrue?
Andreas
Jimbo has commented on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimed...
Andreas
On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Jimbo has commented on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimed...
Andreas
So nice to agree.... with Jimbo.
Paid work as Trustee is not against Charity Commission rules. We agreed that previously.
But to take on Monothopedia and Gib-Pedia? And stay on as a Trustee?
It was noted that he sits out of discussions on such projects.
Time to sit out. For good, Roger? And carry on the good work (but not as a Trustee)?
Gordo
I believe the matter was discussed at Board level when Roger, iirc at the time WMUK Chair, took up consulting with the Monmouth Council and he resigned from the post of Chair as a result of this assignment. Can a Board Member please shed more light on this?
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:28:02 +0100 From: gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Jimbo has commented on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimed...
Andreas
So nice to agree.... with Jimbo.
Paid work as Trustee is not against Charity Commission rules. We agreed that previously.
But to take on Monothopedia and Gib-Pedia? And stay on as a Trustee?
It was noted that he sits out of discussions on such projects.
Time to sit out. For good, Roger? And carry on the good work (but not as a Trustee)?
Gordo
_______________________________________________ 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 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Jimbo has commented on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimed...
Andreas
So nice to agree.... with Jimbo.
Paid work as Trustee is not against Charity Commission rules. We agreed that previously.
But to take on Monothopedia and Gib-Pedia? And stay on as a Trustee?
It was noted that he sits out of discussions on such projects.
Time to sit out. For good, Roger? And carry on the good work (but not as a Trustee)?
I'm sorry, but I agree with Jimbo as well on this. It's simply not appropriate for board members to do private business on the strength of their board membership.
This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.
Take coverage like this article here:
http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html
"The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of *marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia* which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success."
As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK.
I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and pioneering project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission. But Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder.
Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join the ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of the community, without the shelter of WMUK.
Andreas
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.
Take coverage like this article here:
http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html
"The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success."
As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK.
I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and pioneering project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission. But Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder.
Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join the ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of the community, without the shelter of WMUK.
Andreas
Leaving out the Jimbo bit, why does anyone disagree with Andreas? Ok, you can modify the 'string of UK directors', but the basic principles?
I didn't use to have to change the address when sending from Gmail.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work,
leveraging
a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.
Take coverage like this article here:
http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html
"The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture
will
truly be a success."
As things stand, we can look forward to Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia
UK.
I say that as someone who thought Monmouthpedia was a great and
pioneering
project that offered educational value consistent with the WMF mission.
But
Wikimedia UK directors cannot be seen to be in the business of tourism marketing, and be seen to be offering themselves for sale to the highest bidder.
Anyone who engages in paid on-wiki marketing efforts for their private clients should ipso facto be excluded from WMUK board membership, join
the
ranks of paid editors, and perform their work under the watchful eyes of
the
community, without the shelter of WMUK.
Andreas
Leaving out the Jimbo bit, why does anyone disagree with Andreas? Ok, you can modify the 'string of UK directors', but the basic principles?
Just a minor correction – I did not write "long string of UK directors", but "Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK."
The reason I said that is because there has been significant interest from other towns and cities. John Virgin, posting on the Wikimedia UK blog in July, said,
---o0o---
Tyson’s initiative, in talking to Neil Costa, and instigating an approach on behalf of this British Overseas territory, greatly impressed the Monmouthpedia organisers, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings. *They had already been inundated with offers from people looking for their city to be the world’s second Wikipedia town.* Offers had come in from the Czech Republic, the USA, Norway and elsewhere. None had such strong political support behind them.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/tag/gibraltarpedia/
---o0o---
And offers here means business offers, because it involves paid consultancy jobs for their companies. There is clearly enough paid work here for many years. Now it would be a different thing – still untenable, but differently so – if the revenue from that paid consultancy were to accrue to Wikimedia UK or the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than to the consultants personally. But they don't: they are private earnings. I have nothing against successful business ideas and private ventures, but in this case Roger's Wikimedia UK directorship is an element of how these services are marketed, and how they are reported upon in the press, e.g. here:
---o0o---
IT was the cyber http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/cyber project that made the sleepy market town of Monmouth a internet phenomenon.
And Monmouthpedia has been so successful the mastermind behind the project is taking the idea to the British Territory of Gibraltar.
Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK - the charity that supports Wikipedia's mission - and the co-creator of Monmouthpedia.
He picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world hoping to be the second Wikipedia town.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Monmouthpedia+idea+goes+global+as+creator+look...
---o0o---
How is this not a gravy train?
I understand that Steve Virgin, as a former Wikimedia UK director, is also in business for himself, together with John Cummings and Roger.
And according to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin, "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales."
There is a reference to it on this page:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports_26Jul12
under the heading RB, saying, "Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more".
What is this Geovation bid? What involvement, if any, does Wikimedia UK have in the project? What is this 100K funding? Does this too involve paid consultancy work?
Andreas
it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets, nothing more. Anyone worldwide can ask for them, and we'll send them out by post to anyone who wants them for a 'learn to edit' session. That's perfectly reasonable, I think. Total value of the leaflets is negligible, less than 10 GBP, but all the same we thought it best to get a board decision on whether or not to send them because of the potential problems. The decision was, if I recall, that trivial support like a few badges and leaflets would be fine, but nothing substantial.
To be clear, Wikimedia UK has given no money, or expenses, to anything Gibraltar related, or for any trips to Gibraltar, or for any Gibraltarpedia prizes. We've been very clear about keeping a demarcation line between Gibraltarpedia and WMUK. All it's had in terms of support from us is, as far as I know, a few slim paperback booklets.
Will look into it more tomorrow, when I'm in work!
All the best,
Richard On Sep 17, 2012 2:08 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.comwrote:
On 16/09/12 20:02, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing.
And in no way conflicts with his legal status as a Trustee?
Gordo
Dan Murphy on Wikipediocracy asked,
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17594#p17594
---o0o---
I'm feeling more than usually dim. Is this the story? "Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests."
If so, wow.
---o0o---
His question was based on the draft minutes of the 8 September meeting here
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes_8Sep12&oldid=28591#2.1...
which said,
---o0o---
Gibraltarpedia update / MOU - Roger (25 mins)
Roger updated the board on Gibraltarpedia, and explained how he would like to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Wikimedia UK. This would not involve the transfer of any funds, but would mean that Wikimedia UK would offer in-kind support in the form of press coverage and various merchandise.
*DECISION: It was agreed that the office can support Gibraltarpedia with in-kind contributions, but not funds*
---o0o---
I understand the minutes are still being edited, but surely, we can assume that the decision outlined there was indeed taken at the 8 September meeting.
And if so, then I have to say it looks to me very much like Dan's summary was correct. If it isn't, what exactly about it is untrue?
Andreas
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, "Richard Symonds" richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but
the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets, nothing more.
The resolution in the minutes is a lot broader than that. If the intention was just to provide a few leaflets, presumably it would have said so. It speaks of an MoU, which suggests a plan for much greater involvement.
How much staff time had been spent supporting this project? Has Stevie done any media work relating to it, for instance?
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,
Jon.
On 17 September 2012 09:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, "Richard Symonds" < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but
the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets, nothing more.
The resolution in the minutes is a lot broader than that. If the intention was just to provide a few leaflets, presumably it would have said so. It speaks of an MoU, which suggests a plan for much greater involvement.
How much staff time had been spent supporting this project? Has Stevie done any media work relating to it, for instance?
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&curid...
In this edit (which I believe is by Roger while logged out), it is claimed that there is no paid editing involved with Roger's work on Gibraltarpedia.
Roger, if that is the case, could you please explain in what capacity you have made the various edits I mention below?
On 16 September 2012 20:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It has come to my attention that Roger Bamkin has been editing articles on Gibraltar:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
and nominating and reviewing them at DYK:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilte...
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing. That is not strictly against Wikipedia policy (although it is certainly frowned upon) but I'm pretty sure it is against WMUK policy for board members or staff to edit Wikipedia in relation to chapter activities. Since GibraltapediA is being supported by the WMUK office (as approved in the 8 September 2012 board meeting), I think it qualifies as a chapter activity for this purpose.
I invite Roger to make a statement on this list explaining his relationship with the Government of Gibraltar and how it relates to his Wikipedia editing, and to give assurances that all such conflicted editing will cease immediately.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org