On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > (starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, > hope that is OK) > >> I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't >> really work and people need more support than just an email address >> they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and >> procedure, > > > Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part. > > OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there > aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or > no success with Wikipedia!
Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do that. >> >> and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up >> for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a >> market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and >> individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the >> same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a >> paid service.) > > > The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary > contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not > shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to > someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they are > paying you to do that... :D It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.) >> It would be better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be >> providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying >> to offer such services. > > > We do have to be a little careful here what with the current grumblings > about COI etc. Yes, being careful is a must! >> >> I did try and draw up a rough business plan >> for such a consultancy, and I think it could turn a profit. The big >> unknowns were how much we could charge (I used some PR consultancy >> chargeout rates I found online as a rough estimate) and how much >> non-chargable work would be required in order to attract business (if >> we get people just knocking on the door without any reals sales work >> required, then it would easily be profitable). > > > Is this something you would be willing to share with us? It's just a scrap of paper with some numbers on it, but I can write it up if you like. I didn't share it when I first wrote it (a couple of weeks ago) because there were still too many unknowns to work out whether it would actually be profitable. > My thoughts are that you have the germ of the idea, but are taking it in a > direction that runs into numerous problems farther down the line. > > OTRS kinda works; I will admit I have seen some replies from Wikipedians > that make me cringe at their bluntness. However this is not an unassailable > problem. > > I would tackle this idea in three ways: > > * Invest in OTRS agents; run training sessions (we have already done that > once I think...), write training materials etc. > * Invest in the OTRS software; it's not entirely fit for our purposes. The > concept is not complex, and I feel it would be possible to contribute either > to the OTRS software-base, tweak the existing code or even begin from > scratch with a custom-built solution. > > The third strand would be based on your thoughts about paid support. Rather > than offer one-to-one support, I'd suggest training days and support groups > (think; Wikipedia Anonymous :)). Based loosely on the format of a morning > crash course in Wikipedia and an afternoon QA session, with editors around > to help with individual issues. > > Just thinking aloud. That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to sort it out. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
