Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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.j...@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_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK 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 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Parkinson's UK Wikipedia training (Thursday 11 October 2012) - we need trainers
Dear all, Parkinson's UK has contacted Wikimedia UK with a request to have a introductory Wikipedia training run for them on Thursday* 11 October*, 10am-4pm, London. They have found out about us after hearing about the Cancer Research collaboration, and were inspired to also help Wikipedia in the field of their expertise. There are about 10 people from the charity that are interested in taking part in the event, most/all of these would be newcomers to Wikipedia. I have created a simple page with the details: *http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_UK_Wikipedia_training * If you would like to run/help run this session, please do sign up on the page or let me know. You can also get in touch if you have any questions. Many thanks Daria -- Daria Cybulska - Events Organiser, Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0994 +44 7803 505 170 -- 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.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] List configuration - reply-to
I've just accidentally sent another email offlist... as previously requested, can someone please change the list settings back to having replies go to the list automatically like they do on every other mailing list I subscribe to? Inconveniencing everyone like this in order to protect a few people that are too careless with their personal information is not a good decision. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: Accidentally sent offlist... Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list. Is it possible to change the default behaviour of the Reply button back? It never used to do this. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On 17/09/12 12:48, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com mailto:thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list. Is it possible to change the default behaviour of the Reply button back? It never used to do this. Andreas See the names at the bottom of this webpage: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l They are in charge of the list behaviour. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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 i...@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address. 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 17 September 2012 12:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@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 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@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_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
To list as well. Gah! Why did we set it this way again? -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Date: 17 September 2012 13:32 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin To: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com On 17 September 2012 13:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: 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. You've turned Jimbo saying *If* what you say is true into Jimbo agrees with me. That's logically invalid. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@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. -- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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.symo...@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 i...@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address. 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 17 September 2012 12:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@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 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@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+looks+to+Gibraltar+for+next...-a0297237924 ---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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] Number of people the chapter has worked with
I'm at an event about open data and charities and someone has just asked how many people each delegate's charity has worked with (term not defined) in the last year. I wonder whether Wikimedia-UK keep such stats? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Ada Lovelace Day organised by Wikimedia UK - 19 October 2012, London
Dear all, It's Ada Lovelace Day on 16 October and it's most suitable for Wikimedia UK to get involved. The day exists to celebrate the contributions of women in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As you may know, Ada Lovelace is considered the first programmer, due to her work on Charles Babbage's analytical engine. As such, she's someone we can very much hold up as a role model. Wikimedia UK is organising a Women in Science themed editing event for Ada Lovelace Day on* Friday 19 October* 2012 and would like to invite you to attend! We have organised a group 'Edit-a-thon' to improve Wikipedia articles about women in science, held at the Royal Society's library, London, 2:30-6pm. We had a very high response from the academic community, and we filled many more spaces than expected! However, there are still a couple of places free for people who would like to help train new contributors - please get in touch if you are interested. There will also be opportunities to get involved online, which we will publish at our Wikimedia UK event's pagehttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace_Day_2012(see below). Following the Edit-a-thon there will be an panel discussion with Uta Frith from the Royal Society and other female scientists on women in science (the focus will be much broader than just the representation of the topic on Wikipedia). The panel discussion will take place from* 6:30pm - 8:00pm, *and you are most welcome to attend - there are still free places available, so please feel free to register here *http://royalsociety.org/events/2012/wikipedia-workshop/* Wikimedia UK also has a page for the event, which you can see here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace_Day_2012 Hope to see many of you there. Best, Daria -- Daria Cybulska - Events Organiser, Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0994 +44 7803 505 170 -- 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.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Number of people the chapter has worked with
We're still pulling those stats together, but just in the last few weeks, the marvellous Coventry photo competition led to about 60 people getting involved. I'd hazard a guess at somewhere between 500 and 1,000 individuals who have been to WMUK-funded events in the past year - but that's a very broad guess. It may be much higher (but I don't think it's lower). If you were to include people affected by WMUK's work, or if you were to include events which we didn't support, but which were run by UK members, then it gets very complex. I know that event metrics are a hot point at the moment in WMUK :-) 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 17 September 2012 16:49, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I'm at an event about open data and charities and someone has just asked how many people each delegate's charity has worked with (term not defined) in the last year. I wonder whether Wikimedia-UK keep such stats? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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: werespielchequ...@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.symo...@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 i...@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.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@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 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 ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
I am at the bedside of someone in hospital so this will be brief. We have been working on an agreement solidly for the last two months. Should be agreed VERY shortly. �No cock ups OR conspiracies just very complicated law. �Jon. Jon. /div Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -Original Message- From: joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sw...@hotmail.co.uk Sender: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:49:25 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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_sw...@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: werespielchequ...@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.symo...@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 i...@gibraltarpedia.org as the press contact address. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting0207 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.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@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 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 ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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. Chris ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Whether it is written down anywhere or not, we do have a very clear policy that WMUK does not pay people to edit. Obviously, that isn't what is happening here - the government of Gibraltar is paying Roger, not WMUK - but the reasons behind that policy still apply. Conflicts of interest are not, in themselves, a problem, but they must be carefully managed. One of the key ways of managing a conflict is to have very clear demarcation. It must be very clear in what capacity you are acting at any given time. I don't think there is sufficient demarcation between Roger's roles as a trustee, a Wikipedia volunteer and a Gibraltar contractor. The confusion is primarily between the latter two, but that should still be of concern to the chapter. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? Best, Lodewijk 2012/9/16 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Annual_Conference_2012_AGM_Minutes#Discussion_over_the_voting_process It says there that there was going to be an EGM before September 2012 to decide on how future board election would be held. Is there any word on that? I think the short answer is no. Chris ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? There has been no progress. :-) Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions. Thanks, Chris ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? There has been no progress. :-) Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions. Thanks, Chris ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Whether it is written down anywhere or not, we do have a very clear policy that WMUK does not pay people to edit. Obviously, that isn't what is happening here - the government of Gibraltar is paying Roger, not WMUK - but the reasons behind that policy still apply. Conflicts of interest are not, in themselves, a problem, but they must be carefully managed. One of the key ways of managing a conflict is to have very clear demarcation. It must be very clear in what capacity you are acting at any given time. I don't think there is sufficient demarcation between Roger's roles as a trustee, a Wikipedia volunteer and a Gibraltar contractor. The confusion is primarily between the latter two, but that should still be of concern to the chapter. Well said, though I think the confusion between the roles of trustee and contractor is greater than you indicate – simply because a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK may be a more attractive proposition to a client than a consultant who is not – because a client may set greater store by an assurance that content will not be nasty if it is made by a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK. Such assurances were reportedly made. From the article Gibraltarpedia: A New Way to Market the Rock: 'As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.” ' http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25479 A client unfamiliar with Wikipedia would have an expectation that a director of Wikimedia UK would be able to deliver on the promise that disagreeable content would be reverted in short order – or at least more able than someone who was not a Wikimedia director. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use... On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM. I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM. All contributions are welcome. -- Doug On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? There has been no progress. :-) Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions. Thanks, Chris ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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_DYK 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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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_DYK 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 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
He's mistaken. There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org and 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. -- Doug On 17 September 2012 23:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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_DYK 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 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages. J. On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use... On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM. I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM. All contributions are welcome. -- Doug On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? There has been no progress. :-) Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions. Thanks, Chris ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that could be considered as an option. KTC [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that could be considered as an option. KTC [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Schulze_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method I'm very keen that the election method we choose is (in theory) hand-countable (that's one reason why I propose STV-ERS97 rather than a different variant (the other is that I've been counting elections under STV-ERS97 since 1998...)). Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case. That said, I'm still happy to draft rules for Schulze if there's demand for it. I'll have to reread that article in the morning as I mostly failed to understand it at this time of night! J. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
I have a preference for the Schulze method as well, since it is generally superior to many other methods, even if somewhat opaque in its mechanism. Examining the comparisons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table should give an indication of its strengths. The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python implementation at https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blob/master/pyvotecore/schulze_stv.pybut more interestingly, an online voting service at https://modernballots.com/ Thoughts? -- Doug On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that could be considered as an option. KTC [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Schulze_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
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. Tom On 17 September 2012 23:18, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: 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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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_DYK 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 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
James, Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The announcement of the results shall include a statement indicating which of the elected candidates are required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting. This is not the spirit of STV/ERS97. The algorithm produces a strict order of preference (ie. order of election) of the candidates, which we should use to determine who gets a longer term. (Ref: ERS97 5.1.7: Considering each candidate in turn in descending order of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a) the quota[...]) If we want to preserve the approval voting element of the election, a RON (re-open nomination) candidate may be introduced to the election. Once RON is declared elected, its place and all subsequent (unfilled) places are declared re-open. Deryck On 17 September 2012 23:26, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages. J. On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them. However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use... On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM. I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM. All contributions are welcome. -- Doug On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)? There has been no progress. :-) Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions. Thanks, Chris ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@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. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On 17/09/2012 23:50, rexx wrote: The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python implementation at https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blob/master/pyvotecore/schulze_stv.py but more interestingly, an online voting service at https://modernballots.com/ It's available as part of MediaWiki extension [1] from the 2008 WMF board election onwards, since superseded by [2]. On 17/09/2012 23:40, James Farrar wrote: I'm very keen that the election method we choose is (in theory) hand-countable (that's one reason why I propose STV-ERS97 rather than a different variant (the other is that I've been counting elections under STV-ERS97 since 1998...)). Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case. Schulze is hand countable. It just get awfully long very quickly if the the number of voters / candidate increases. This is certainly something that will have to be considered. KTC [1]: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote [2]: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
*sigh* caught in the reply-issue On 18 September 2012 00:04, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: On 18 September 2012 00:03, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@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. It goes back to your point about demarcation though. At no point did Roger really identify this as *his project*. And the outro discussing WMUK leaves one assuming (quite fairly, I think) it is a WMUK project. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote: OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages. I'd prefer an online system (e.g. as in en:WP arbcom elections) to one involving ballot papers. A. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
