Wikipediocracy

Wales Online: Wikipedia: How a project launched in Monmouth has gone global

The free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia landed on starting an information scheme in Monmouth – 33 miles from Hay – in 2011 and now such schemes are popping up in Western Australia, Tunisia and Gibraltar.

Monmouthpedia saw the town dotted with scores of ceramic plaques bearing QR codes – a barcode that can be scanned with a smart phone to access information about the location.

Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia.

“Frepedia is in Fremantle, Australia, and uses the same ideas,” he said.

“Praguepedia has put up plaques like Monmouth, Sayadapedia in Tunisia is working in French and Arabic, and Gibraltarpedia has just created 650 new articles but has no plaques yet.”

Work is also being done in Germany, Spain and India.

“And we have done work in Russia and in the USA,” he said.

New York, Mexico and Scotland all expressed interest after Monmouthpedia.

The first place to follow Monmouth’s lead was Gibraltar.

Not a word about the fact that Bamkin is trying to make money from these projects, and abusing Wikipedia rules to do it?

That website looks more than a bit like a Welsh Sun, or somesuch shallow tabloid. Sports and celebrity blather, and who-the-hell-is-April-Jones-no-don't-answer-that. We apparently can't really expect serious WP reporting from outfits like this. (Insert snide remarks about the Guardian here.)

Daily Mail: Brazilian barcodes: Rio de Janeiro helps tourists navigate city with pavement mosaics

Includes a minor mention of Monmouth's status as a Wikipedia town.

Are these projects all using Bamkin's QRpedia codes?

Moonage Daydream wrote:Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia.

I've dropped a note about this to Wikimediauk-l.

HRIP7 wrote:

Moonage Daydream wrote:Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia.

I've dropped a note about this to Wikimediauk-l.

Let's see if they are as enthusiastic and aggressive about these corrections as when they perceive their glorious project has been sleighted.

Article now reads:

Roger Bamkin is a former trustee of the Wikimedia charity. Wikimedia UK is a UK-based charity that supports and promotes Wikipedia.

I left a comment:

Writer James McCarthy got numerous things wrong in this article. Namely, the article used to read "Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia." But, I see that has been corrected. The thing is, now that the article reads, "Roger Bamkin is a former trustee of the Wikimedia charity", no effort has been expended to learn *WHY* Roger Bamkin is no longer a trustee of the Wikimedia UK!

Any dope could search the news from 2012 and see that Bamkin's Gibraltarpedia project turned out to be a financial scandal of international proportions. I suppose that was too much effort for Mr. McCarthy, who rather seemed to need to push this agenda that all things Wikipedia are just lovely and gay.

And another article by Wales Online:

Llandaff plans to become ‘Wikipedia town’

Roger Bamkin, director of Wikimedia UK, said someone from Llandaff had contacted him about the idea but he had yet to meet them to discuss it.

thekohser wrote:I left a comment:

Writer James McCarthy got numerous things wrong in this article. Namely, the article used to read "Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia is the body that operates Wikipedia." But, I see that has been corrected. The thing is, now that the article reads, "Roger Bamkin is a former trustee of the Wikimedia charity", no effort has been expended to learn *WHY* Roger Bamkin is no longer a trustee of the Wikimedia UK!

Any dope could search the news from 2012 and see that Bamkin's Gibraltarpedia project turned out to be a financial scandal of international proportions. I suppose that was too much effort for Mr. McCarthy, who rather seemed to need to push this agenda that all things Wikipedia are just lovely and gay.

...meanwhile Gibraltar serenely ignores the fuss and carries on getting its free publicity and the wider world is none the wiser.

I'd have thought a stronger angle would be the potential damage to the reputation of towns who don't have the wisdom to understand that they are associating with someone prepared to use charitable organisations for their own business ends.

Can't believe the fuss over QRPedia, it has to be all of 5 lines of code to do a lookup given a particular input, don't see why Wikimedia don't just walk away - it's not like there is anything patentable aside from a natty name. If there is an issue in releasing it (like the control is in the domain embedded in the actual code scanned - I get confused which belongs to who) then it simply highlights that the relationship is not with Wikipedia but with a private individual.