WMUK secretary appointed Chief Executive of CIPR

[HRIP7]

I've just learnt that Wikimedia UK secretary Alastair McCapra, who joined the Wikimedia UK board in June 2013, was last month appointed the new Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK.

CIPR has today announced the appointment of Alastair McCapra as chief executive, effective from 4 November 2013.

McCapra, who takes over the role from Jane Wilson, is currently chief executive of the Landscape Institute.

He said: “I am delighted to be taking on the role of chief executive of the CIPR.

“All professions, and the bodies which represent them, are under incredible pressure in the modern world and I will be bringing to the CIPR my experience of how others are rising to these challenges.

“I want to ensure that the PR profession is well equipped to respond positively to changes in technology, client expectations and regulation. I also want to ensure that it is highly regarded both by its clients and by society more widely. I look forward to working with the Board and Council, and to meeting members around the country in the coming months, as well as taking part in exciting events such as the Public Relations Show.”

As yet, there is no mention of this appointment (which becomes effective on 4 November 2013) on the Wikimedia UK board page.

Alastair McCapra[edit]

Alastair McCapra
Alastair is currently Secretary of Wikimedia UK (since July 2013). He has been a trustee of Wikimedia UK since June 2013. He is also Chief Executive of the Landscape Institute.

Alastair's term runs until the 2015 AGM.

Email: alastair.mccapraatwikimedia.org.uk

Discuss.

[dogbiscuit]

Well, it would be interesting to see how a PR executive could spin the conflict of interest - remembering that a UK charity requires its trustees to act solely in the interests of the charity, and there must be a conflict whenever the issue of PR arises - a very sensitive topic, especially considering the alumni of WMUK.

[DanMurphy]

That the ranks of friends of free "knowledge" who accumulate in various Wikipedia positions of power have an over-representation of public relations professionals (aka spin doctors) is hardly surprising.

Actually, it appears he was simply brought in (based on his background) to clean up the corruption there and I wonder if he's getting paid for his time. I hope so.

[Poetlister]

If he's an expert on PR, is he good enough to improve WMUK's image with us?

[Anthonyhcole]

I wonder if he's getting paid for his time. I hope so.

Chief executives are usually paid. I'm unsure whether his role at CIS involves a fatal COI with his role at WMUK. Presently I'm having trouble imagining problematical intersects (open to persuasion, though). When a conflict arises, he will recuse, of course. What matters most is his competency and integrity and I haven't seen any credible concerns about those; in fact this appointment could be seen, to some degree, as an endorsement in those regards.

[dogbiscuit]

I wonder if he's getting paid for his time. I hope so.

Chief executives are usually paid. I'm unsure whether his role at CIS involves a fatal COI with his role at WMUK. Presently I'm having trouble imagining problematical intersects (open to persuasion, though). When a conflict arises, he will recuse, of course. What matters most is his competency and integrity and I haven't seen any credible concerns about those; in fact this appointment could be seen, to some degree, as an endorsement in those regards.

Conflicts don't have to be based around individual decisions, there can be a conflict in the fundamental mindset. For example, the whole issue of relations with other organisations potentially takes on a different flavour where someone with a mindset in favour of the PR industry will not see a problem with a policy of relationships that seem mutually beneficial, and might not consider the potential damage that might arise with people like us throwing rocks from the sidelines. In fact, his position might make it more difficult to justify genuinely beneficial relationships.

Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthopedia are not fundamentally evil projects - I have always held that getting local people involved in understanding their locality has great potential, not only by provoking interest in things local but also by introducing a more normal, rational group of people into the Wikipedia world. Unfortunately, those projects were corrupted by the selling of the PR angle (as well as the personal advantage to those involved) and that might suggest that any future project based on the good parts of those ideas could be fundamentally damaged by the perception of them being driven by the PR interests represented on the trustees, whether that was the case or not, especially as it is impossible to recuse from all the surrounding talk that goes with being in an organisation.

[Vigilant]

Perhaps we're getting a preview of Sue's replacement.

[Moonage Daydream]

From the WMUK "watercooler"

Alastair McCapra's declaration of interest

I was grateful to see Alastair update his declaration at Declarations_of_Interest#Alastair_McCapra in advance of taking up the role of CEO of CIPR.

CIPR and WMUK have had a productive relationship in the past, however this does appear to introduce a direct conflict on interest on the WMUK board. During my time as a trustee and the Chair, the viewpoints of board members were varied, complex and at times heated, with regard to failures of governance within PR industry, resulting in a pattern of PR professionals being caught out when covertly attempting to manipulate the content of Wikimedia projects.

In my personal view, though I respect CIPR and the impressive lead it has taken to guide the industry, especially around individual governance, the mission of CIPR is not one that sits well with the WMUK mission and values. We now have the situation where a trustee on the board is a paid advocate on behalf of the public relations profession. Having the CEO of CIPR advise the WMUK board is incredibly useful and valuable, having the same person as the WMUK Secretary and a voting trustee, introduces a realistic reputational risk for WMUK to be open to future allegations of using resources and putting political pressure on Wikimedia projects to the benefit of the PR industry.

I would appreciate Alastair's thoughts on how he intends to manage his conflict of interest and whether he believes it is best for the charity to continue as the Secretary and a Trustee on the board in these circumstances.

Should Alistair remain active as a trustee, I call upon the board of trustees to openly publish an independent review of this conflict of interest in advance of Alastair taking up his new role in November, considering Alastair's appointment was made public more than a fortnight ago and he would have advised his fellow trustees in advance of his appointment, I am sure this has been subject to an in-camera review which might now be useful to publish for the benefit of the members of the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[dogbiscuit]

From the WMUK "watercooler"

Alastair McCapra's declaration of interest

I was grateful to see Alastair update his declaration at Declarations_of_Interest#Alastair_McCapra in advance of taking up the role of CEO of CIPR.

CIPR and WMUK have had a productive relationship in the past, however this does appear to introduce a direct conflict on interest on the WMUK board. During my time as a trustee and the Chair, the viewpoints of board members were varied, complex and at times heated, with regard to failures of governance within PR industry, resulting in a pattern of PR professionals being caught out when covertly attempting to manipulate the content of Wikimedia projects.

In my personal view, though I respect CIPR and the impressive lead it has taken to guide the industry, especially around individual governance, the mission of CIPR is not one that sits well with the WMUK mission and values. We now have the situation where a trustee on the board is a paid advocate on behalf of the public relations profession. Having the CEO of CIPR advise the WMUK board is incredibly useful and valuable, having the same person as the WMUK Secretary and a voting trustee, introduces a realistic reputational risk for WMUK to be open to future allegations of using resources and putting political pressure on Wikimedia projects to the benefit of the PR industry.

I would appreciate Alastair's thoughts on how he intends to manage his conflict of interest and whether he believes it is best for the charity to continue as the Secretary and a Trustee on the board in these circumstances.

Should Alistair remain active as a trustee, I call upon the board of trustees to openly publish an independent review of this conflict of interest in advance of Alastair taking up his new role in November, considering Alastair's appointment was made public more than a fortnight ago and he would have advised his fellow trustees in advance of his appointment, I am sure this has been subject to an in-camera review which might now be useful to publish for the benefit of the members of the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Tags (separate by commas): Fae, in camera, stirring, hypocracy

[Anthonyhcole]

Conflicts don't have to be based around individual decisions, there can be a conflict in the fundamental mindset.

So, anyone who could work in or support the PR industry is, ipso facto, unqualified for WMUK board membership? I don't know. (Really.)

CIPR's mission:

We are the advocate and voice of the public relations profession, a champion of our professional interests, a respected partner to the broader communications community and a body that works in the public interest.

We enhance the reputation and understanding of the public relations profession and the professionalism of our members through the provision of world-class structures for the practice of public relations. We do this by providing education, knowledge building and sharing, research, excellent governance, conduct and ethics.

I wonder if ethics is last in order to add emphasis, or if the list is in order of priority. cf WMUK's mission:

Wikimedia UK’s mission is to help people and organisations build and preserve open knowledge to share and use freely.

WMF:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

[thekohser]

So, anyone who could work in or support the PR industry is, ipso facto, unqualified for WMUK board membership? I don't know. (Really.)

Maybe you could ask Jimbo's third wife, who should be an expert on that question. She's a PR professional, she's married to the Sole Founder of Wikipedia, and she's living in England (in a similar way to most WMUK stakeholders)!

[Midsize Jake]

Mr. Mccapra (T-C-L) recently (Aug. 14) removed himself from the Landscape Institute's WP article along with a link to an article about the budget cuts that led to his leaving the organization, which requires registration to read.

I suppose there's no reason to assume he's up to no good by remaining on the WMUK board, but nevertheless, apparently not everyone was entirely happy with Mr. McCapra's tenure at the Landscape Institute.

I would like to make it clear that I do not trust McCapra: I consider him as unreliable, intellectually dishonest, with scant regards for facts, full of contempt for Members and generally concerned with furthering his own career above anything else. However, he is not stupid, so he makes sure he gets his facts right on relevant documents. He simply twists facts to make the rest of us look stupid...

Sounds familiar.

[dogbiscuit]

So, anyone who could work in or support the PR industry is, ipso facto, unqualified for WMUK board membership? I don't know. (Really.)

Maybe you could ask Jimbo's third wife, who should be an expert on that question. She's a PR professional, she's married to the Sole Founder of Wikipedia, and she's living in England (in a similar way to most WMUK stakeholders)!

I think it is a difficult one but clearly someone who is the CEO of the PR industry representation is under a pretty strong obligation to live, sleep and breath the PR message.

We all have conflicts to some extent, there are two strong issues here:

1) Perception of potential for conflict.

2) Ability for an individual to think themselves entirely into the role of a trustee who must take every decision in the interests of the charity excluding all else.

I think the first issue speaks for itself (I'm tempted to reconsider though if Fae thinks the same way ).

The second one is based on my viewing of the various shenanigans that have gone on with my local charity trustees. The village hall locally is wonderfully boring now with people plodding through the dull routine, plenty of money in the bank, handing over to new committee members and so on. 3 years ago, it was filled with "businessmen" who "knew" how to make it solvent and nearly drove it into extinction because they only were thinking about income and expense, not the life and soul of the place that made it a desirable place to be. I think someone at the top of their game in the PR industry would struggle to switch off that mindset, and would most likely be fixated on image rather than the essence of the task. It sounds like a really useful skill to have within the organisation, but it has the potential to be too powerful an influence on the thinking.

I guess it also is a matter of roles. Is it right to have a PR person as secretary? Are there facets of the PR mind that are incompatible with the necessarily routine nature of the secretarial role?

[Vigilant]

True to course, whenever Ashley van Haeften weighs in on an issue, it's fairly safe to take the opposite position.

He's a reliable contra-indicator for ethical behavior.

[Notvelty]

So, anyone who could work in or support the PR industry is, ipso facto, unqualified for WMUK board membership? I don't know. (Really.)

Maybe you could ask Jimbo's third wife, who should be an expert on that question. She's a PR professional, she's married to the Sole Founder of Wikipedia, and she's living in England (in a similar way to most WMUK stakeholders)!

I think it is a difficult one but clearly someone who is the CEO of the PR industry representation is under a pretty strong obligation to live, sleep and breath the PR message.

....

I guess it also is a matter of roles. Is it right to have a PR person as secretary? Are there facets of the PR mind that are incompatible with the necessarily routine nature of the secretarial role?

They should definitely hire an engineer. Engineers are infallible. /s

[HRIP7]

I wonder if he's getting paid for his time. I hope so.

Chief executives are usually paid. I'm unsure whether his role at CIS involves a fatal COI with his role at WMUK. Presently I'm having trouble imagining problematical intersects (open to persuasion, though). When a conflict arises, he will recuse, of course. What matters most is his competency and integrity and I haven't seen any credible concerns about those; in fact this appointment could be seen, to some degree, as an endorsement in those regards.

Conflicts don't have to be based around individual decisions, there can be a conflict in the fundamental mindset. For example, the whole issue of relations with other organisations potentially takes on a different flavour where someone with a mindset in favour of the PR industry will not see a problem with a policy of relationships that seem mutually beneficial, and might not consider the potential damage that might arise with people like us throwing rocks from the sidelines. In fact, his position might make it more difficult to justify genuinely beneficial relationships.

Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthopedia are not fundamentally evil projects - I have always held that getting local people involved in understanding their locality has great potential, not only by provoking interest in things local but also by introducing a more normal, rational group of people into the Wikipedia world. Unfortunately, those projects were corrupted by the selling of the PR angle (as well as the personal advantage to those involved) and that might suggest that any future project based on the good parts of those ideas could be fundamentally damaged by the perception of them being driven by the PR interests represented on the trustees, whether that was the case or not, especially as it is impossible to recuse from all the surrounding talk that goes with being in an organisation.

It should be noted that Arne Klempert, who was a Wikimedia Foundation board member for some time (and I believe a board member of Wikimedia Germany before that) was and is in the PR industry too (working for Fleishman-Hillard).

[HRIP7]

It should be noted that Arne Klempert, who was a Wikimedia Foundation board member for some time (and I believe a board member of Wikimedia Germany before that) was and is in the PR industry too (working for Fleishman-Hillard).

This is now on Jimbo's talk page.

It has been announced that Alastair McCapra, Secretary and Trustee of Wikimedia UK, elected June 2013, is to become the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the principal trade body for PR in the U.K. There is a discussion here about whether this constitutes a conflict of interest. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It is obviously a conflict of interest and clearly demands a choice between one or the other. There is no shame in that - such is the nature of nonprofit work. But especially for Wikimedia UK, with a history of problems in this area, it's absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt something that has to be handled with the utmost defensiveness about the reputation of the organization. I trust that Alastair will do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Arne Klempert was on the WMF board from May 2009 to July 2012.

He became Director Digital at Fleishman-Hillard in October 2010.

It's probably not wise for Wales to shoot from the hip like that, without speaking to the Wikimedia UK guys first. Even so, I tend to think he is right on this one – but I can't for the moment fathom why what is right for Alastair was not right for Arne, who served on the WMF board alongside Jimmy Wales for more than three years.

[EricBarbour]

Book wiki on Arne Klempert:

Works for German PR firm Fleishman Hillard. Actually did some editing, mostly on de-WP, and became Wikipedia Deutschland's press contact, and president of the chapter 2006-2008. Appointed to replace Domas Mituzas in June 2009 as the official selection of the Wikimedia Deutschland chapter. He left the board in July 2012, very quietly.

Thereafter, Klempert wrote an article for PC Magazine Germany on how to make Wikipedia edits "stick", and was attacked for it in de-WP noticeboards. Possible reason for his interest: he had apparently been editing the article about Fleishman Hillard, under the name CorporateM. Plus: Fleishman Hillard devised a scheme called "Wikipedia Corporate Index (WCI)", usable by German businesses to evaluate their Wikipedia coverage. Leading, again, to angry denunciations on de-WP.[6][7]

[Silent Editor]

WMUK seems to have always had links to the PR industry. Former WMUK trustee Steve Virgin ("not a PR consultant per-se") ran PR campaigns, and even wrote a blog post for the PRCA (Public Relations Consultants Association), promoting "PR professionals working alongside Wikipedians on a project of common benefit".

Of course, things have changed at WMUK now. Only one trustee is left from the Gibraltarpedia heyday... and he sees no problem with McCapra's appointment, and will help him respond to [the] debate accordingly.

[HRIP7]

Discussion at the WMUK Watercooler has continued. I had stayed out of it until now, but have now posted the following:

Alastair, you said above, "If you have a look at what negative stories tend to run in the press about Wikipedia, it is usually about hoaxes, inaccuracies, trustees being paid to work on projects, and pornography. Would the press really get excited about my job? It doesn't seem likely to me." If I look at the types of negative stories that have run in the press, one consistent theme – almost a meme, really – is covert exercise of influence on Wikipedia's content by PR professionals. Indeed, I have myself had a hand in alerting the press to several cases of this type. I can assure you that the press's interest in this type of story is significant, and rightly so, as there are few other scenarios more likely to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia than this one. Jimmy Wales has on several occasions been very outspoken about this matter and made comments that have attracted significant attention.

Now, like most matters related to Wikipedia, there are two sides to this issue.

On the one hand, Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to both subtle and gross bias and defamation. I would like PR professionals to have a seat at the Wikipedia table: there should be a much better-functioning mechanism for people to make complaints about how they are being portrayed in Wikipedia than there is at present. As it is, I cannot morally judge companies and other organisations who make clandestine use of commercial editing services to ensure that they are not being misrepresented in Wikipedia, given that Wikipedia's gates are wide open to clandestine bias and defamation from those companies' and organisations' detractors.

On the other hand, we are seeing more and more advice columns from PR professionals on how to leverage Wikipedia in their clients' or employers' interest. This includes both denigrating competitors, and sanitising one's own entry and/or making it as positive and compelling as possible. Allowing this to go on unchecked is not in the readers' or Wikipedia's interest.

The CIPR has done good work with WMUK in the past to outline some basic terms of engagement. But it cannot be denied that the interface between the PR industry and Wikipedia is among the biggest challenges both Wikipedia and the PR industry face. It is not a settled area; there are still diverse views, from Jimmy Wales' outspoken hostility to PR efforts in Wikipedia to the German model where PR professionals are invited to register verified company accounts ("User:Coca Cola Germany") and contribute in a transparent way. Dirk Franke in Germany is currently conducting a major study of paid editing for Wikimedia, and will I believe report in a few months' time. There is also uncertainty about the legal situation, at least in the EU – see this Signpost article. To my mind there is no doubt that the interaction between the PR industry and Wikipedia is an area that will continue to be negotiated and re-negotiated over the coming years (including, perhaps, the legal arena, to clarify what the law does and does not allow). The outcome of all these discussions is of vital interest to both parties and the public.

Wikimedia UK has played a significant role in this process in the past, and will continue to do so. However, it follows that your having a leadership role in both organisations, simultaneously, constitutes an ineluctable conflict of interest whenever the topic is raised, and that it will be perceived as such by the media and public. A collegial and productive relationship between WMUK and CIPR is, I believe, desirable, and as I say, there is past good work to build on here. But I believe that having one person perform a leadership role in both organisations will ultimately prove to be to the detriment of both. It will certainly make WMUK vulnerable. Regards,

[Silent Editor]

And he responds "The Wikimedia UK Board has discussed the situation and concluded, unanimously, that there is no reason for me to resign for the time being."

That's what they concluded, unanimously, about Bamkin too, isn't it?

[Vigilant]

And he responds "The Wikimedia UK Board has discussed the situation and concluded, unanimously, that there is no reason for me to resign for the time being."

That's what they concluded, unanimously, about Bamkin too, isn't it?

And Ashley van Haeften before him.

Perhaps they mean that he'll be resigning shortly, but not within the next hour.

[dogbiscuit]

And he responds "The Wikimedia UK Board has discussed the situation and concluded, unanimously, that there is no reason for me to resign for the time being."

That's what they concluded, unanimously, about Bamkin too, isn't it?

There's a lovely inevitability about that statement, isn't there?

[Wer900]

And he responds "The Wikimedia UK Board has discussed the situation and concluded, unanimously, that there is no reason for me to resign for the time being."

That's what they concluded, unanimously, about Bamkin too, isn't it?

There's a lovely inevitability about that statement, isn't there?

Well then again, it's a perfect reflection of the habits of Spiritual Leader Jimbeau.

[HRIP7]

Some further discussion has ensued, notably between Fæ (Ashley Van Haeften) and The Land (Chris Keating).

[HRIP7]

Alastair McCapra has released a statement on managing his potential conflict of interest.

Preamble

The Charity Commission requires that charities take steps to manage potential conflicts of interest which trustees may encounter arising from other roles they have, whether these are paid jobs or merely connections with other parties. The Commission’s guidance on these matters is set out at http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/tru ... -interest/. The key principle is that potential conflicts should be declared, managed and recorded.
Each trustee makes a declaration of interests which they must keep regularly updated. This document provides further details of the potential conflicts of interest which may arise in respect of Alastair McCapra’s salaried position as Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR). The statement which follows has been seen and agreed by the Board of Wikimedia UK as well as by the Board of CIPR.

Statement

If any potential conflict of interest arises for me in respect of my employment, from 1 November 2013, as Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, I anticipate that it will be one of the three following types:

1. Normal employer conflicts of interest. I am conscious of my responsibility as a trustee to ensure that my employer and those associated with my employers in no way derive material benefit from my position as a trustee. The potential for such benefit to exist might arise in a situation where Wikimedia UK was putting contract work out to tender and either CIPR or one of its members was bidding for the contract. In any situation where CIPR or one of its members is competing for work from Wikimedia UK I will recuse myself from all Board discussions and decisions relating to this matter from the time I become aware of it. The potential for such benefit might also exist in a situation where the CIPR or one of its members was offering sponsorship to Wikimedia UK. While I am a trustee I will neither solicit nor encourage any such sponsorship and if such sponsorship is offered I will recuse myself from all Board discussions and decisions relating to this matter from the time I become aware of it. I consider both of these situations to be extremely unlikely.

2 Fundamental conflict of values/Conflicts of loyalty. If my employer espouses core values in respect of Wikimedia projects which are at odds with the values of the Wikimedia movement itself, there is a potential conflict of interest. For the present CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers have agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners on how to interact with Wikipedia, which states essentially that PR practitioners should not edit articles for their clients and should always follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition, CIPR TV carries an interview with David Gerard, a Wikipedia community member, advising PR practitioners how and how not to engage with the encyclopedia. The incoming CIPR President, Stephen Waddington, has authored a chapter in the recently published book ‘Share This Too’ about how PR practitioners should engage with Wikipedia in accordance with the guidelines. I therefore feel that the likelihood of my being placed in a situation where there is a serious conflict of values or loyalties is low.
However I must be mindful of the fact that if, in future, CIPR and Wikimedia no longer agree on matters which relate to Wikipedia, the potential for a conflict of interests will exist for me. The degree of that conflict would depend on the nature of the disagreement. Potentially such a conflict could be so serious as to be unmanageable and I would have to resign as a trustee. Among these situations are:
i. If I become aware that CIPR is seeking to modify the guidelines I would need to make the WMUK Board aware of this and take no part in any following discussion. If CIPR ceases to respect Wikimedia community guidelines for acceptable behaviour I would probably need to resign my WMUK trustee role.
ii. I may learn something in my capacity at CIPR which represents a risk to WMUK, and which I ought, as a trustee, to disclose to WMUK, but cannot. I will ensure that my employers are aware that I will operate on the basis that I can disclose anything relevant to WMUK to WMUK.
iii. It may be that a leading spokesperson for the CIPR could in future make public remarks which are damaging to the Wikimedia community even if these remarks are not consistent with CIPR policy. As Chief Executive, I would not be able to contradict these remarks in public, so if they were not retracted I would probably need to resign as a WMUK trustee.
iv. It is conceivable that WMUK and CIPR might at some future stage be lobbying government or campaigning for positions which are opposed to each other. If this situation developed, I would probably need to resign.

3. Sensitivities relating to PR practitioners editing Wikipedia. It is likely that some PR practitioners might edit Wikipedia in a way that is not consistent with existing guidelines, and which brings them into conflict with the Wikimedia community. In this strictest sense this does not present me with a conflict of interests. Firstly, the PR practitioners involved are failing to adhere to the guidelines set out by my employer, and secondly, the Wikimedia UK Board does not generally discuss editing. I am not on the Board to represent the PR industry, least of all those elements within it who do not follow the guidelines provided for them. However although I do not believe I have any conflict of interest arising from editing disputes, given the sensitivity of this matter I think it is reasonable for me to indicate clearly how I will conduct myself if I find myself involved in a discussion about such matters.
i. If questions about editing by PR practitioners are raised at the WMUK Board I will recuse myself from any discussion or decision relating to them. I will not use my position as a Wikimedia UK trustee to influence discussions about paid editing and the PR industry with the Wikimedia Foundation, should such discussions occur.
ii. If this matter is raised outside the Board within the Wikimedia community I will limit my contributions, if any, to speaking in support of the existing guidelines.
iii. If the matter is raised within CIPR I will not recuse myself, but actively advocate the existing guidelines.
iv. I will in all cases say nothing and act in no way which encourages anyone not to follow Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and specifically, I will not play any part in any initiative by CIPR or any other party to relax those guidelines.
v. I will not act as a representative of CIPR or of the PR industry to Wikimedia UK and if there are bilateral discussions between CIPR and Wikimedia UK I will recuse myself entirely from them.

Discussion of the statement is beginning here.

[HRIP7]

Further discussion now on the WMUK mailing list ...

[thekohser]

Further discussion now on the WMUK mailing list ...

They really do love bashing us, don't they?

[Vigilant]

If we were wrong about stuff like this on a regular basis, they'd just point and say, "They're always wrong."
The rejoinder would be true and effectively dismiss our concerns.

The fact that they've resorted to ad hominem attacks, "It's from wikipediocracy.They're not the boss of us!", shows just how often we hit the mark n exposing the greed, vanity and incompetence of WMUK.

Edit:
This is VERY interesting.
Outsiders with apparently significant non wikipedia experience being added to the WMUK BoT.

You'll never see another USB stick, Ashley.

[lilburne]

This is VERY interesting.
Outsiders with apparently significant non wikipedia experience being added to the WMUK BoT.

You'll never see another USB stick, Ashley.

Further enlargement of the board can be expected soon, particularly with a view to increasing the proportion of trustees who are active members of the Wiki community.

Everyone shall get a title and everyone shall get prizes.

[Peter Damian]

Further discussion now on the WMUK mailing list ...

They really do love bashing us, don't they?

The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.

[EricBarbour]

Further discussion now on the WMUK mailing list ...

They really do love bashing us, don't they?

Oh, do I need to post some info on Brian McNeil's past history?

[Vigilant]

Further discussion now on the WMUK mailing list ...

They really do love bashing us, don't they?

Oh, do I need to post some info on Brian McNeil's past history?

Yes please, sir. May we have another?

[EricBarbour]

You are a masochistic lad, aren't you? Very well, this is from our Wikinews article:

Wikinews has an Arbcom, with five members (and 15 ex-members including Cirt), who evidently do nothing: their case archive contains exactly four cases from the last 5 years--including one case that was dragged out into 2 (the Amgine squabble). Quote from Poetlister: "That ArbCom was, I think, only set up so they could appoint CheckUsers. It's a curious flaw in the system that on WP CheckUsers are appointed by a handful of ArbCom members, whereas on smaller Wikis you have to scrape together 25 yes votes (which can be quite difficult)."

Brian McNeil vs. Matthew Edwards

Possibly the greatest embarrassment for Wikinews: the amazing Brian McNeil, and his deranged attempt to eterna-ban a contributor (and fellow Wikinews admin), Matthew Edwards, who was supposed to use a press pass to cover a race--and had to deal with his grandmother's death instead. The harassment included posting a picture of a hanged man on Edwards' userpage, as well as repeated "billion year" bans. A really prime example of a shithead admin abusing his powers, with support of other admins (mainly Blood Red Sandman). McNeil being an original member of Wikinews Arbcom, along with the gracious and lovely Cirt. The debate over removing McNeil's powers led nowhere --"no consensus". McNeil is still a Wikinews Arbcommer and admin, and Matthewedwards continues to contribute.

Per EB on WR: "If you have the patience, look into McNeil's edit history. He's a complete, total, screaming sadistic monstrosity. As someone joked to me, "I bet he likes to strangle puppies and kittens for a quiet evening of amusement". And I still suspect that Blood Red Sandman is his "alternate account". Exactly the same kind of activity--verbal abuse and threats, on top of blocks and bans handed out by the thousands. He's doing it on Wikinews AND on en-WP. McNeil, and his sock(s), should be banned. But they won't be. That by itself is a strong indictment of the "WP Way"."

Posted on WR: "Wikinews is more of a mafia than Wikipedia. Anyone who criticized McNeil over the last scandal has now left, have you noticed?"

Re-examination, 2013

"It's just as dysfunctional as it was when we looked at it on WR in 2010, except that incredible troll Brian McNeil has apparently been replaced as the chief troll -- by Laura Hale and Cirt. In fact, she, Cirt and Pi zero appear to be generating most of the changes, and doing most of the administrative work, all by themselves."
"Laura really enjoys blocking people, including accounts that have never done any actual apparent edits. This should give you an idea of what a booming and popular project it is. They can't get enough members for an Arbcom election. All their noticeboards are almost dead, except for occasional stupid fights with people they don't like. There was a proposal in March to close all Wikinews projects, and it was fought to a standstill---by the few remaining Wikinews administrators, with their friends."
"WN is actually starting to look better. Front-page items tend to be similar to the stories in the mainstream media, although there's very little actual content or traffic, still "amateur hour" there. Right now they are splashing an "exclusive interview" with Cindy Sheehan, "2014 candidate for California governor". Not a word about the fact that Sheehan hasn't got a chance in hell of winning anything."
"Who reads Wikinews? Damned if I know, other than rabid Wikipedia fanboys."

[HRIP7]

Another mention in the Signpost "News and notes":

Three weeks ago, we also reported on a conflict-of-interest issue in Wikimedia UK—that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), a professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK, has appointed Alastair McCapra, the current Wikimedia UK Secretary, as its new chief executive. Geoff Brigham, general counsel of the WMF, has published an opinion that "if a substantive issue arises at CIPR with respect to Wikimedia or its projects, I understand that Alastair intends to recuse himself from discussion and decision and appoint someone else at CIPR to act as the final decision maker on that issue within CIPR to avoid any appearance of a conflict of duty of loyalty. Alastair would also recuse himself on the WMUK board from a discussion and decision on any issue concerning CIPR. If an issue is particularly contentious and critical to the very fabric of either organization, Alastair may need to make a decision of resignation to address the potential conflict on that question, but such decisions can be handled on an issue-by-issue basis. The mere possibility of such a scenario does not necessitate resignation today."

Chris Keating, Chair of the WMUK board, has posted this message: "If there is a widespread view that, even with the steps we've outlined, it's not in the charity's best interests for Alastair to continue, then we will listen to that. However since Alastair posted the details of how he will handle this situation, only 5 people (myself included) have taken part in the resulting discussion. Some have posted at some length and in strident terms, but I don't yet see the picture I would need to see to be persuaded we are taking the wrong course of action here."

Discussion continues at the WMUK water cooler, beneath Brigham's statement.

Incidentally, this edition of News and notes also has some interesting comments from Sue Gardner:

Straight talking from the executive director
Sue Gardner's reflections emphasised the successes of the new system, but went on to express significant concerns about how the WMF's affiliated entities are developing: "too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the chapters [whereas] the value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the movement. ... I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost".

While stating her confidence in all FDC members, Gardner said: "I am troubled by the FDC being disproportionately chapters-centric, and my concern increased rather than decreasing following the 2013 FDC member elections, which resulted in the two open FDC seats being filled by chapters Board members. ... the FDC process, dominated by fund-seekers, does not as currently constructed offer sufficient protection against log-rolling, self-dealing, and other corrupt practices. I had hoped that this risk would be offset by the presence on the FDC of independent non-affiliated members".

"With such a high proportion of [resources] now funding [chapters' staff and offices], we need to ask if the benefits are turning out to be worth the cost. It's possible that a well-managed shift to some staff support can help a volunteer community stay energized and enthused, but the risks and costs of setting up bricks-and-mortar institutions also dramatically increase, alongside sometimes difficult dynamics between staff and community".

In Gardner's view, we lack evidence that this spending "is significantly helping us to achieve the Wikimedia mission. I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates requested by the entities submitting funding requests to the FDC." She challenged Wikimedians to ask themselves "whether there are more imaginative and agile ways of organizing our movement that will support our work better".

An unexpected outbreak of sanity. Looks like she has realised that the donations are funding a gravy train, without commensurate benefit to the donating public.

[HRIP7]

Also an interesting tidbit about Wikimedia India:

A related issue concerning the standards of governance required of FDC grant recipients was first raised in the Signpost two weeks ago. In that edition we linked to an anonymous tip-off on the Wikimedia India mailing list on 15 September claiming that two returning members of the chapter's executive committee, Pranav and Karthik Nadar, were in the paid employment of a third, Moksh Juneja, who joined them as a new member at the August election. This information did not appear to have been disclosed to voters, despite the obvious potential for conflict-of-interest in a block of three of a total of nine members. The incident took a new turn yesterday when Moksh Juneja confirmed the employment relationships "have ended / [are] in the process of ending", and denied that this had any connection with the anonymous tip-off. Former president of Wikimedia India Arjuna Rao Chavala served on the chapter's election committee for the August election; his current membership of the FDC means that this information is likely to be discussed on the Committee. An additional point of debate may involve another matter raised in the same edition of the Signpost—the allegation by one candidate, Santosh M. Shingare, that the chapter's election committee had failed to release the list of eligible voters 21 days before the election as required by the chapter's rules. In making the allegation that he would no longer participate in the election, Shingare declared he would no longer participate as a candidate.

[Vigilant]

It really makes you wonder if there exists a single clean chapter.

[Cedric]

Incidentally, this edition of News and notes also has some interesting comments from Sue Gardner:

Straight talking from the executive director Sue Gardner's reflections emphasised the successes of the new system, but went on to express significant concerns about how the WMF's affiliated entities are developing: "too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the chapters [whereas] the value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the movement. ... I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost".

While stating her confidence in all FDC members, Gardner said: "I am troubled by the FDC being disproportionately chapters-centric, and my concern increased rather than decreasing following the 2013 FDC member elections, which resulted in the two open FDC seats being filled by chapters Board members. ... the FDC process, dominated by fund-seekers, does not as currently constructed offer sufficient protection against log-rolling, self-dealing, and other corrupt practices. I had hoped that this risk would be offset by the presence on the FDC of independent non-affiliated members".

"With such a high proportion of [resources] now funding [chapters' staff and offices], we need to ask if the benefits are turning out to be worth the cost. It's possible that a well-managed shift to some staff support can help a volunteer community stay energized and enthused, but the risks and costs of setting up bricks-and-mortar institutions also dramatically increase, alongside sometimes difficult dynamics between staff and community".

In Gardner's view, we lack evidence that this spending "is significantly helping us to achieve the Wikimedia mission. I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates requested by the entities submitting funding requests to the FDC." She challenged Wikimedians to ask themselves "whether there are more imaginative and agile ways of organizing our movement that will support our work better".

An unexpected outbreak of sanity. Looks like she has realised that the donations are funding a gravy train, without commensurate benefit to the donating public.

I suspect Sue is rather less concerned about the public than she is about the WMF losing control over who gets to be rewarded with wiki-sinecures. It was her own lack of leadership and foresight that led to this decentralization of the "Wikimedia movement" and the scramble for money and positions.

[EricBarbour]

but went on to express significant concerns about how the WMF's affiliated entities are developing: "too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the chapters

I suspect Sue is rather less concerned about the public than she is about the WMF losing control over who gets to be rewarded with wiki-sinecures. It was her own lack of leadership and foresight that led to this decentralization of the "Wikimedia movement" and the scramble for money and positions.

She was also the director who turned the WMF into a fundraising beast. Before her, funding was less than a joke. Now they've got something like
$30 million in the bank, regular million-dollar gifts from various foundations and corporations, and most of all, they're no longer viewed as a freak
by the rest of the nonprofit world. The days of Florence Devouard, Carolyn Doran, and Danny Wool are way behind them.

Evidently when you've got $30 million, "weak leadership" doesn't matter. People will still kiss your ass.

[Vigilant]

I love how the people getting the funds have voted themselves onto the committee that doles out the funds.

Nobody could have possibly foreseen that?!

[The Joy]

I love how the people getting the funds have voted themselves onto the committee that doles out the funds.

Nobody could have possibly foreseen that?!

Well, it works for my local government...

[HRIP7]

I love how the people getting the funds have voted themselves onto the committee that doles out the funds.

Nobody could have possibly foreseen that?!

Well ...

I understand that according to the membership criteria, "To be eligible for the FDC, members must: ... be able to set aside any conflicts of interest and work towards the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement without considering individual or organizational interests. Staff / board members of entities requesting funds from the FDC may serve on the FDC; however, they must recuse themselves from deliberations pertaining to their entity's application."

However, in my view chapter officials should not even serve on the committee, as this would inevitably result in the formation of backscratching alliances, and in some chapters being given an avenue for behind-the-scenes campaigning not open to others. To give an analogy, directors of construction companies do not get to sit on government boards awarding construction contracts, and for good reason. You still get shenanigans, but closing the obvious loopholes is just a question of exercising minimum due diligence. --JN466 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

[Wer900]

ANDREAS, WIKIPEDIA IS TOTALLY CLEAN, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PLEASE MOVE ON, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...

And when we move on, the cycle continues its slow motion.

[HRIP7]

ANDREAS, WIKIPEDIA IS TOTALLY CLEAN, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PLEASE MOVE ON, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...

And when we move on, the cycle continues its slow motion.

[Vigilant]

Interesting point I saw made
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... pend_money

Comment—one of the problems with Sue's reasoning here is that it is actually the foundation itself that imposed many of the extra costs for chapters. For example, the new reporting requirements by the WMF and FDC require most chapters to have a full-time employee dealing just with metrics and specific requests, the WMF's new legal guidelines require most active chapters to pay legal fees to a lawyer, etc. I estimate that for some small chapters the running cost went up by more than 100% because of these relatively new requirements, and even for large chapters this is not negligible by any means. I understand why most of these new requirements exist, but the WMF shouldn't be surprised that existing volunteers have neither the time nor the expertise to handle the extra load and have to hire employees to do it.

In terms of value to the movement, chapters are responsible for most of the useful innovations in the movement, both in terms of projects and even in terms of engineering which the chapters weren't intended for (the Toolserver and WikiData both come from Germany). The chapters are responsible for getting millions of high-quality images to Commons, many of them from archives that would otherwise be inaccessible. The chapters are responsible for convincing government agencies to release free content. They are responsible for holding community events and letting people around the world know that Wikipedia is not just a website, but a resource that anyone can edit that has a community of real people behind it that can provide all kinds of support for all kinds of projects. Disproportionate funding for the value that they create? Maybe disproportionately low.

—Ynhockey (Talk) 11:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypocritical Sue?
NEVER!