Pete's emphasis on transparency, disclosure and an absolutist approach to
conflict of interest brings up an interesting issue. Pete is the only
Wikipedian I'm aware of to have developed a full time consulting career
centered on the English Wikipedia. His Wiki Strategies company has a fairly
robust statement of ethics, including assertions that any editing by either
himself or his clients will come attached to a conflict of interest
warning. The statement is impressive and laudable, although it does not
link to any list of projects or clients that an observer might use to see
it in action. Still, a very good start, and Pete rightly encourages other
entrepreneurs to adopt his standards.

But despite some searching, I haven't found any overt disclosures of a
relationship between any companies and Wiki Strategies, or any detail about
which companies or articles Wiki Strategies have had a hand in guiding. I
notice that on his Signpost interview Pete links to the Pixetell article as
an example of his work; Pete apparently edited that article at least once
several years before disclosing that he had (at one time) a "connection"
with Ontier/Pixetell. While Pete does say that he "worked with" the company
on the article, I don't see where it was made clear that this was in his
capacity as a for-profit, paid consultant. The limited disclosure came only
after the company was evidently acquired and shut down, and barely 50 edits
before he mentions it in the Signpost interview.

I'm also a little concerned that Pete created his consulting company in
February 2009, prior to his employment by the WMF (which began towards the
end of 2009). The announcement of his hiring describes his background in
some detail, but does not refer to his consulting business. The consulting
business and his employment at the WMF then continued in parallel for two
years, and there is no reference on his site, his LinkedIn profile or his
userpage that the business was mothballed while he was employed.

I don't mean to accuse Pete of doing anything that violated policies on the
English Wikipedia, and I'm not aware of any internal policies that might
apply. But it does strike me that his userpage is a bit of an advertisement
for his business (on it, he links to the Wiki Strategies contact form and
invites people to contact him there), and that there is some mystery
surrounding the consultancy and its activities. Of course all this serves
to support part of Pete's point in his blog post; transparency is tough to
successfully mandate, and hardly solves all of the inherent issues
surrounding for-profit engagement with Wikimedia content.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Reply via email to