Fabian, Thanks for this very interesting idea. I've also thought that there are a number of opportunities in this space derived from the wikimedia projects that aren't entirely suited to a registered charity.
A number of UK charities manage to combine an enterprise through a "trading subsidiary". Would this idea work through such a vehicle? Regards, On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to thank Thomas Morton for his well thought explanation > addressed to Roger (Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:51:10 +0100). It covered a number > of points I felt need addressing and Tom put them in a useful and tactful > way - much better than I could have hoped to do. > > However, I would like to address some ramifications of this. > > >This is one reason why charities are often run by older, retired, types > who > >do not need to go out and earn a living. > > Quite so. However, one of the consequences of the phenomenal success of WP > is that the potential development of where we are now has created space > for activity beyond that which WMUK as a charity is best placed to carry > out. > > a) Wikiversity has a great potential, however the development of such a > repository of Open Educational Resources (OERs) will be very slow without > people being paid - not so much for editing but for delivering teaching > which uses WV as a platform, creating OERs free for other people to use. > The dynamic for this is quite different from WP and Wikicommons. > > I have not been involved in all the sister projects, but suspect that they > will each have their own dynamic, which needs to be addressed in its own > terms. > > b) Linked to a) is the delivery of training in how to use WP. It seems to > me very straight forward to see WV as an ideal platform for this. There is > also much to be learnt from WikiEducator, which uses a Mediawiki in > conjunction wit the moodle software. > > c) Another aspect of this is that I have noticed that some of the people > who attend WMUK training sessions are people who are employed by learned > societies as Social Media Officers. While I find volunteering to train > other volunteers quite attractive, when it comes to giving time freely in > order help in the training for paid workers of organisations I am > confident that i am not the only person who finds this a bit awkward. > Likewise as we welcome academics who stipulate that their students achieve > certain goals in order to pass a course, this to me creates a market for > delivering training outside a volunteer - to -volunteer framework. > > Aside from the problems which have arisen from Roger being a trustee, I > think the work he has done is amazing and really innovative. I would like > to see it continue. However what I feel would really facilitate this is > the creation of a not-for-profit social enterprise which would provide a > structured way in which innovations like QRpedia could be placed in > relation to both WMUK, WMF and the broader community. > > I feel that our community has an amazing range of diverse talents, and > that if the possibilities provoked by WPs success are to be realised, then > we need to develop a way in which the ethos of unpaid editing of WP itself > can be balanced with other roles which are emerging which are peripheral > to editing but which can greatly enhance WP and its sister projects. > > I hope that the recent experiences at WMUK will stimulate a discussion > about how such a social enterprise might be set up, how the ethos of > collaborative working and sharing of resources might be taken forward, how > this can be done in a way which does not disrupt the very success which WP > has enjoyed, and how such a social enterprise can contribute towards > fundraising for WMUK to deliver its charitable goals. > > If such a discussion is got going now, there is some prospect that we > could have a concrete proposal which has been mulled over by the community > in time for the next AGM. > > As Tom said: > > >Bottom line; you (as a board), we even, fucked up. Not maliciously, but > >very badly. You lost sight of the wider objective. > > >But it's not something to beat each other up over. Learn from it, make > >improvements, move on. > > I am proposing this as a way of moving on in a way which keeps people like > Roger with their brilliant ideas involved but not as trustees. > > all the best > > Fabian > (User:Leutha) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > -- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey <https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey> http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
