I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is *actually doing* - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write.
For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: "Eh, you're wrong." That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from * both* sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them.
I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community.
Fiona
I'd get back to the guy, and ask him to make the necessary corrections. It's not paper, and he's already realised that Gibraltar is not an island. :)
Andreas
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM, User Panyd wikipanyd@gmail.com wrote:
I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is *actually doing* - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write.
For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: "Eh, you're wrong." That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from *both* sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them.
I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community.
Fiona
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Unfortunately Fiona is not really able to do this at the moment. I'm going to help her contact them (as her husband) and make the corrections.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 20 September 2012 19:35, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I'd get back to the guy, and ask him to make the necessary corrections. It's not paper, and he's already realised that Gibraltar is not an island. :)
Andreas
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM, User Panyd wikipanyd@gmail.com wrote:
I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is *actually doing* - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write.
For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: "Eh, you're wrong." That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from *both* sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them.
I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community.
Fiona
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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org