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 <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating < >>> [email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
