WMUK Governance review - call for comments

[HRIP7]

Chris Keating, the chair of Wikimedia UK, has posted a call for comments on the wikimediauk-l mailing list concerning the ongoing Wikimedia UK governance review.

Dear all,

As you may know, earlier in the Autumn Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation appointed Compass Partnership to conduct an independent review of our governance. The review is well under way now and Mike Hudson and Keith Smith, the governance experts conducting the review, have already started conducting interviews with key people.

As well as identifying people to interview, there is an open call for comments by members of the community for the review to consider. This call for comments has just been published on our blog:

http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/co ... overnance/

If you would like to take part, please read the questions posed by the Compass Partnership in their blog post and send your answers to wiki at compassnet.co.uk.- this is a dedicated address set up to receive comments.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Keating
Chair, Wikimedia UK

As mentioned in Chris Keating's post, there is also a blog post, written by Keith Smith of Compass Partnership, on the WMUK blog.

The blog post provides general background and lists a choice of five questions. Each reply sent to them should be marked as relating to one of these questions:

1. What key things do you think have gone well with the organisational governance of the charity Wikimedia UK?
2. What has not gone so well with its governance?
3. The Charity Commission for England and Wales acknowledge that potential conflicts of interest or loyalty may well arise on a charity trustee board. When they do it is required that they be declared to the board and then appropriately managed by the board. Do you have any comments on how the Wikimedia UK board of trustees appears to have managed any such potential conflicts of interest or loyalty to date?
4. Over the year changes have been made to the Wikimedia UK board and its practices in part to develop the management of any potential conflicts of interest or loyalty on the board and between Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. In your view are any further changes in this regard to Wikimedia UK governance required, and if so what?
5. Do you have any other comments to offer to aid the future development of the organisational governance of Wikimedia UK as a charity?

[dogbiscuit]

I think that the fundamental thing that has not gone well is that a small group of people spent a lot of time and effort forcing the charity aspect of the organisation through - something that was not essential to the organisation and indeed financially has backfired as they cannot take advantage of it in this year's fundraiser. The key people then immediately took advantage of the organisation for their own ends. Conflict of interest was therefore embedded in the very founding of the charity.

So the question has to be again asked: is a charity the appropriate form for this organisation? It is interesting to think that if it was not a charity, most of the activities that have been called into question would be considered legitimate (though again, there would be a significant conflict with the Wales view of who is allowed to make money out of the Wikipedia name - nobody aside from himself given the choice).

I think the review needs to sit back and ask for any given activity within WMUK, what are the basic tests that establish whether a particular activity fits with the charitable remit of WMUK? If these cannot be readily defined, then there has to be a question as to whether WMUK is capable of fulfilling its charitable obligations.

Let's take the example of Fae's memory stick. In what way does the activities that this supports increase the educational value of Wikipedia? Sure, it hacks around with tags and stuff, but what is the educational merit of that?

[FlossMore]

I think that the fundamental thing that has not gone well is that a small group of people spent a lot of time and effort forcing the charity aspect of the organisation through - something that was not essential to the organisation and indeed financially has backfired as they cannot take advantage of it in this year's fundraiser. The key people then immediately took advantage of the organisation for their own ends. Conflict of interest was therefore embedded in the very founding of the charity.

So the question has to be again asked: is a charity the appropriate form for this organisation? It is interesting to think that if it was not a charity, most of the activities that have been called into question would be considered legitimate (though again, there would be a significant conflict with the Wales view of who is allowed to make money out of the Wikipedia name - nobody aside from himself given the choice).

I think the review needs to sit back and ask for any given activity within WMUK, what are the basic tests that establish whether a particular activity fits with the charitable remit of WMUK? If these cannot be readily defined, then there has to be a question as to whether WMUK is capable of fulfilling its charitable obligations.

Let's take the example of Fae's memory stick. In what way does the activities that this supports increase the educational value of Wikipedia? Sure, it hacks around with tags and stuff, but what is the educational merit of that?

If you don't have a good reason for not being a charity, like wanting to use your corporate funds to promote political purposes (like anti SOPA, PIPA), promote tourism (Gibraltar), etc., then being a charity is a good way to go.

[EricBarbour]

If you don't have a good reason for not being a charity, like wanting to use your corporate funds to promote political purposes (like anti SOPA, PIPA), promote tourism (Gibraltar), etc., then being a charity is a good way to go.

Of course! Ask the people who ran the Vanguard Foundation into the dirt!

PS: I suspect that this is how the WMF will eventually fall--via the application of sheer corruption and stupidity, in bucketloads. And the Board of Trustees will stand by and do nothing.

PPS: don't bother looking the Vanguard Foundation up on Wikipedia. Nothing. And it's damned well notable by now. "All human knowledge" my balls. They do have a bio of Mouli Cohen, though--created by an apparent paid editor.

Career

Cohen is a thief.

[FlossMore]

If you don't have a good reason for not being a charity, like wanting to use your corporate funds to promote political purposes (like anti SOPA, PIPA), promote tourism (Gibraltar), etc., then being a charity is a
good way to go.

PPS: don't bother looking the Vanguard Foundation up on Wikipedia. Nothing. And it's damned well notable by now. "All human knowledge" my balls. They do have a bio of Mouli Cohen, though--created by an apparent paid editor.

Career

Cohen is a thief.

Interesting, the Vanguard Foundation is well within the keep standards of even the most rabid deletionists, but it appears there never was an article. Maybe they needed a shooting, not just thievery.

[EricBarbour]

Interesting, the Vanguard Foundation is well within the keep standards of even the most rabid deletionists, but it appears there never was an article. Maybe they needed a shooting, not just thievery.

That's not all: the Mouli Cohen bio was AFDed in May, and this was posted on it.

Keep Sorry about that - I've know about Mouli Cohen for 15 years and I'm a little passionate about this page, as it's been changed in two directions: stripping it of any reference of the fraud conviction and deleting anything not relating to the fraud. Please read my full statement, which concludes: Mouli Cohen was known for three distinct things:

CEO of several Bay Area video game companies over the last 15 years
He was a highly visible as a entrepreneur and philanthropist in Bay Area High Society,
He was convicted of a very high profile major fraud that involved some of the largest names in the entertainment business, including Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Elton John, and Jennifer Lopez.

I argue for keeping the article, but fixing it to give it more balance and context. The subject is notable - but needs to be protected from vandals and those who might focus too much on the fraud conviction. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The guy practically admitted having a COI, and no one said anything.

[FlossMore]

Interesting, the Vanguard Foundation is well within the keep standards of even the most rabid deletionists, but it appears there never was an article. Maybe they needed a shooting, not just thievery.

That's not all: the Mouli Cohen bio was AFDed in May, and this was posted on it.

Keep Sorry about that - I've know about Mouli Cohen for 15 years and I'm a little passionate about this page, as it's been changed in two directions: stripping it of any reference of the fraud conviction and deleting anything not relating to the fraud. Please read my full statement, which concludes: Mouli Cohen was known for three distinct things:

CEO of several Bay Area video game companies over the last 15 years
He was a highly visible as a entrepreneur and philanthropist in Bay Area High Society,
He was convicted of a very high profile major fraud that involved some of the largest names in the entertainment business, including Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Elton John, and Jennifer Lopez.

I argue for keeping the article, but fixing it to give it more balance and context. The subject is notable - but needs to be protected from vandals and those who might focus too much on the fraud conviction. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The guy practically admitted having a COI, and no one said anything.

I don't really see the COI; he's passionate about the article and is urging it be kept and rewritten with more balance.