There's very little I can say that would add to Doug's articulate and
well-thought-out post, but I welcome Andreas' more substantive post as a step
towards a rational, mature discussion about these projects. I think such a
discussion has been needed for a while, but hasn't been possible until now
because of the entanglement with wider issues about conflicts of interest etc.
Andreas raises some points that are worth addressing. The conflation of roles
within the chapter is not something I'm in a position to opine on, but "the
projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in the
press" is a legitimate concern. Wikipedia must be neutral, and of course that
neutrality extends beyond the text of a given article. Nevertheless, the
increased visibility of, say, Monmouth is an effect of these projects and one
reason that local governments may wish to see such projects in their areas.
There's no getting away from that - local governments aren't motivated by
altruism in the same way that Wikipedians are. As for the controversy at DYK,
mistakes were made there. I think it was the result of naivety and the lack of
clear process for this sort of thing at DYK and certainly not of any malice.
Roger was just trying to see that people writing articles got some recognition,
as he had done for years before Monmouth- or
Gibraltarpedia were conceived. I think Roger's naivety wrt conflicts of
interest and volumes of nominations at DYK, and DYK's processes, have both been
rectified or are being rectified.
All that said, we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes,
Gibraltarpedia has its issues. No, those issues are not going to go away with
the wave of a magic wand. But I've been to Gibraltar, and the number of people
involved, and the enthusiasm with which the project is met by residents,
cultural institutions, schools, and at least three different government
departments tells me that something is being built that will outlive the
politics surrounding the project, and it has real potential to make a positive
change to the movement without compromising our movement's principles.
None of that is to say that Gibraltarpedia can carry on as though the events of
the last few months never happened (see my first paragraph), but nor is it
fatally flawed. It's also worth pointing out that almost everybody involved is
involved as a volunteer and is contributing to the project and to Wikipedia out
of altruism.
Thanks,
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________
From: rexx <r...@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
My usual optimism can sometimes lead to disappointment, but I think I'd rather
have it that way. Projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia have a huge
potential for doing good work, and they need the community to support and
engage with them to make sure they deliver that good work.
I am pleased to read Andreas' précis of the extent to which he would support
projects, but it's worth fleshing out the positive side of engaging in such
projects, either as volunteers or as a body:
1. There is an opportunity to create many new encyclopedic articles,
not only in English but also in myriad other languages.
2. There is an opportunity to take and publish photographs of notable
objects and people.
3. There is an opportunity to enthuse existing editors and recruit new
editors, training them as we go along.
4. There is an opportunity to create networks to support more projects
between interested groups who share our aims.For example, Monmouthpedia
generated many new articles in multiple languages as well as new photographs;
the volunteers' efforts have helped vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts
made are leading to a shift in attitude of the Welsh Government and academia
towards free and open licensing of work that they create or are custodians of.
Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into
North Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African
wikimedians - perhaps even help to establish new communities of wikimedians
where they do not yet exist.
Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest
scrutiny and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the
future and I'd welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet
the vision of our wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are
potentially the most valuable.
--
Rexx
On 12 February 2013 13:41, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas,
>
>
>I don't think there is much wrong with projects like Monmouthpedia and
>Gibraltarpedia at all. When I first heard about Monmouthpedia, I thought it
>was a great project.
>
>
>Problems arose from –
>
>
>1. the conflation of roles within the chapter,
>2. the projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in
>the press, and
>3. the use of the Wikipedia main page to increase project and customer
>visibility.
>
>
>I see a PR, credibility and integrity problem for the Wikimedia movement if
>such projects are prominently sold by Wikimedia as marketing projects designed
>to increase tourism – because this means we are saying it is fine to leverage
>Wikipedia to boost local business.
>
>
>Similarly, I don't think it is wise to leverage the main page to enhance such
>projects' visibility, or for Wikimedia UK to endorse any such use of the main
>page. Commercial interests should be kept at arm's length from WMF and the
>chapter, and from the Wikipedia identity.
>
>
>I don't want to see the Wikipedia main page play host to all manner of hidden
>commercial interests, especially when the commercial background is not
>transparent to the average reader. In relation to the lack of transparency,
>there is also a potential legal problem here under EU legislation, as
>described in the Signpost a while back:
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes
>
>
>
>In my view, Wikimedia should support such projects as outreach efforts, to get
>people involved in writing content, but not as marketing ploys.
>
>
>In terms of content generation, and getting people involved in Wikipedia,
>these are good projects, and to that degree I support them.
>
>
>Best,
>Andreas
>
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the
>>> Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like
>>> Gibraltarpedia.
>>
>>What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed
>>to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific
>>circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
