Wearing another hat, I'm Chair of Trustees of a local charity that owns a community interest company ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company ), and that works well because the CIC can bid for and take on work that the charity can't. We reinvest any surplus from the CIC back into the charity.
I'm retired now, so I'm lucky that I don't have to make money to live, but I do feel it is important that we don't prevent those who have to earn their livings from making use of their abilities. It seems to me that it's becoming increasingly difficult for WMUK to involve itself in activities that it quite properly ought to be supporting. How much longer before somebody complains that a Wikipedian In Residence is earning money from "paid editing"? -- Doug On 18 September 2012 11:34, <fab...@unpopular.org.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > The GibraltapeidA issue has raised a number of concerns which have led to > a number of members spending time on the matter, and indeed staff time > will have to spent on clarifying the issues involved as well. While > GibraltapeidA has been the occasion of this discussion, and could well > benefit materially from any clarity which results from this mental labour, > they would not be the sole beneficiary. Indeed, the situation arises from > a situation in which WMUK finds itself involved, before having an > opportunity for proper consideration. > > Several months ago I raised with Jon Davies the idea of setting up a > trading arm on a co-operative model, primarily with a view to allowing > Wikimedians to provide training on a paid basis. This could include > Mediawiki coding in general above and beyond immediate Wikimedia sites. > This issues - and I suspect there will be more - reinforces my view that > some sort of trading arm would be useful. > > Certainly amongst the first wave Wikimedians, Wikipedia had not become a > household name and the prospects of applying skills gained through editing > was unlikely to be a significant concern. That situation has changed. Paid > editing on Wikipedia is one thing, but the situation on sister projects > can be quite different: e.g. making material available on Wikisource. I > feel we are at a turning point, and we need to find away of looking at the > overall situation above and beyond the circumstances of GibraltapeidA. > > Perhaps the Board could consider: > > 1) Organising an effective discussion of what role Board members should > play amongst the whole membership. > 2) Linked to this could be the establishment of a social enterprise > through which Wikimedians could gain paid work in an open and moderated > way - including revenue generation for WMUK. > 3) Development of a framework to take matters forward, which, in my view, > should include balloting the membership about any limitations above and > beyond the legal minimum which they might consider appropriate for board > members. > > I realise this is quite a daunting amount of work, but I see it as an > inevitable consequence of the success of Wikipedia. This I see as one of > the key social challenges which the Wikimedia movement faces as we move > into the second decade. > > all the best > > Fabian Tompsett > (User:Leutha) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
