[Wikimedia-l] CNET News: "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia"

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds at wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> I believe part of the problem is that Roger may not be in the UK - he may
> well be in a hotel in Gibraltar with limited and expensive internet access.
> It's not yet been 48 hours since this all broke - give him some time to
> reply.

Roger's been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list
(which is publicly archived):

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009235.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009241.html

He also updated his declaration of interest on Wikimedia UK's website
to assert that his contract with Gibraltar does not include paid
editing:
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin

But (personal opinions only):

- IMO the video shown at Wikimania didn't make the distinction of
roles sufficiently clear, and the confused media reporting should have
been in Wikimedia UK's interest to correct (much like it has been in
WMF's interest to correct journalists who confuse WMF/Wikia). Were
attempts made to do so?

- The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA
is 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 ought
to be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives,
not to promote separate business goals.

Yes, it's possible to try very hard to keep these things separate (and
it appears that Roger's followed the guidelines the chapter's come up
with, and previously stepped down as chair to address this), but it
still creates a perception that for-profit and non-profit interests
are in contention, especially when projects like GibraltarpediA which
are conceived as part of an individual's business activities are
considered for the chapter's programmatic portfolio, and when that
individual is publicly identified with that organization's brand and
mission throughout.

Beyond obvious financial relationships, the intangible associations
("I am a trustee of Wikimedia UK") matter when conflicts of interest
are considered.

- 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).

It would be good to get some more clarity from the UK chapter on its
official position on these issues. I don't think this is a big
"scandal", it's the normal kind of confusion of roles and
responsibilities that occurs often in small and growing, volunteer-led
organizations. Everyone involved is clearly first and foremost
motivated by contributing to Wikimedia's mission. But if this is not
fully and thoroughly addressed there's a risk that it will continue to
reflect poorly on Wikimedia.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate