Gibraltarpedia - rock solid

[EricBarbour]

Have a look at Steve Virgin's contributions. There are massive holes in the record.
He's been on Wikipedia since January 2010 (under this name). Why are there so few contribs in 2010, and yet in 2011 he robot-edited on articles like Saint-Jean-de-Luz (T-H-L) and Uzerche (T-H-L)?
Writing that looks like a tourist brochure, I might add. Then in 2012, suddenly he was on the Monmouthpedia "Public Relations" page, and doing nothing else.

I get the feeling that this is a PR professional, and that someone has oversighted a large number of his contributions. That, or else he runs socks.

Mr. Flying Pigs is a VERY nasty character. His Wikipedia history is a real mess. And yet, he's extremely friendly with Bamkin, Virgin, Keating, and Van Haeften.
Haven't found a clear monetary link between him and WMUK -- yet.

[Vigilant]

We should start a pool...

How long until WMF gets a hair up their ass and moves to excommunicate everyone involved with WMUK as a way to cauterize their exposure to corruption charges that look nearly inevitable.

[tarantino]

Is a "QR code" a "barcode" like the barcodes used to scan the cost and volume of my purchases at Johnny Foodmaster (my local grocer) this evening? Basically, the essence of the grift lies in claiming something "proprietary" about putting the code that was on a $1 package of pasta I bought onto a wall in Gibraltar? Because this will cause tourists to read only "Wikipedia approved" content about a place in Gibraltar? And this is important and worthwhile?

Wow. We've gone beyond parody.

Andy Mabbett is obsessed with QR codes. They are actually a clever design, readable with any cheap digital camera and usable to carry a small
amount of information, like a URL. They were originally intended for parcel tracking, inventory and other "boring" business applications.

People have talked for years about putting QR tags on tourist and historical sites, but there was never much substantial interest from local
governments or businesses. Their utility or value for this purpose remains to be seen.

This is a QR code that encodes the URL for this thread. There are various smart phone apps that can be used to translate it.

[HRIP7]

This is Steve Virgin's business set-up:

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/stevevirgin

Media Focus UK

http://mediafocusuk.com/

It's basically all about Wikipedia:

http://mediafocusuk.com/about-2/#.UFfoNrJlTm4

One of the Directors gave his time for free as a Board Director/Trustee of Wikimedia UK. He planned, coordinated, ran and delivered one of the most successful events in terms of numbers – in Wikipedia’s history.

http://mediafocusuk.com/getting-pr-indu ... Ffm8LJlTm4

Monmouthpedia – a small step for the PR industry on a longer road to deeper understanding of Wikipedia ... A second goal was set. That was to get the two PR industry bodies to approach their membership and ask them to get involved in the launch of Monmouthpedia the World’s First Wikipedia Town on May 19th, one week after the AGM. The idea behind this was to get PR professionals working alongside Wikipedians on a project of common benefit. It was also to show the value of the work that Wikipedians do in a fresh light to public relations professionals, thereby, starting the process of deepening the level of understanding of each others’ ways of working on both sides.

http://mediafocusuk.com/pr-successful-l ... FfoX7JlTm4

PR – LAUNCH OF THE WORLD’S FIRST WIKIPEDIA TOWN

http://mediafocusuk.com/secured-charita ... FfouLJlTm4

CHARITABLE STATUS FOR WIKIPEDIA IN THE UK

etc.

[Tippi Hadron]

is Mr. Flying Pigs one of their business partners in all this? It's getting more confusing than a mid-career Agatha Christie novel. If he is, the muck of corruption grows riper still.

From Mr Mabbett's blog:

During the first weekend of December, I was in Amsterdam, at the invitation of Wikimedia-UK and Wikimedia-NL (two of Wikipedia’s many “chapters”, which support the work of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects).

I was asked to lead a workshop about QRpedia, the project with which I’m involved, which puts QR codes into GLAMs, linking to Wikipedia articles, but detects the language used by the GLAM visitor’s mobile device and serves them an article in that language or offers the alternative languages or a Google translation if none is available.

After my QRpedia presentation, I was surprised and delighted to be asked to repeat it — four days later, in Hamburg, Germany! A very quick turnaround by Wikimdia-DE, who kindly funded my trip, meant I was able to book flights immediately upon my return to Birmingham — flying out via Zurich and back via Copenhagen.

[HRIP7]

Haven't found a clear monetary link between him and WMUK -- yet.

Well, there's the Geovation business:

http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediauk ... 05297.html

This week, Roger Bamkin, John Cunningham, Robin Owain and I took part in an intensive, competitive event, as part of the GeoVation Challenge:

<http://www.geovation.org.uk/>

We pitched a proposal to extend the Monmouthpedia model along the Wales Coast Path, the world's first footpath covering the entire coastline of a country:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_Coast_Path>

Our bid, which would involve training communities of people to edit articles about their local area, the erecting QRpedia codes linking to those articles, was very well received, and we're through to the final:

<http://www.geovation.org.uk/finalists-i ... -showcase/>

which will take place on 18 June. If successful we will receive funds which will cover the cost of training sessions and the production of QRpedia plaques and stickers.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... ger_Bamkin

Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports_26Jul12

Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more

[Tippi Hadron]

[HRIP7]

Also see the ARKive project ambassadorship mentioned here as well as here – "This involved a fixed-period in-residence role that we are calling Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador. Andy Mabbett, known on Wikipedia as User:Pigsonthewing, has been appointed to this role, starting on 11 July 2011." – "Wikimedia UK will provide support throughout the period." Described here as a ten-week part-time job, i.e. presumably paid.

Of course, there is nothing sinister or improper about such positions in and of themselves in a charity context. It just sits uneasily with Wikipedia, as Wikipedia has such a strong ethos against editors profiting from their Wikipedia work, and has so many volunteers beavering away without any remuneration whatsoever for years and years and years.

[HRIP7]

There have been some changes to the untrikiwiki site: a statement has been posted.

http://untrikiwiki.com/explanation-to-a ... d-editing/
http://www.webcitation.org/6AlC7nLZ6

UntrikiWiki has recently received some public attention from Wikipedians who disagree strongly with our belief that COI consultants can serve in a mutually beneficial liaison that is good for both Wikipedia and organizations that contract us. We’d like to explain in more detail what it is that Untriki has been doing, and what our future plans are to try to ameliorate some of the confusion around us.
We’ve never made a single edit for which we had a conflict of interest on Wikipedia – ever. Although we have advertised such a service, we’ve not aggressively pursued it – and we have not accepted any clients interested in on-Wikipedia work. [...] Starting now, and lasting indefinitely, we will not accept any paid conflict of interest Wikipedia editing work. To support this statement, we have removed mentions of the services from our website. This isn’t because we think it’s wrong, but because we think it would serve as an unfortunate distraction to our current work and because we recognize that if we ever pursued paid editing as a service, we need to first publicly develop and declare a process that will be acceptable to Wikipedia’s community. [...]

At the time of writing, the site still offers Wikipedia Editing as a service though:

http://untrikiwiki.com/services/
http://untrikiwiki.com/services/#edit
http://www.webcitation.org/6AlGlGOPd

[EricBarbour]

Mabbett has been blocked for one year. TWICE. At the direction of Arbcom.
He has also been eternabanned, repeatedly, for cause -- and then unbanned later. Once by a name you've seen on Wikiversity before, Adambro. (The reason given is outright bullshit.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... disruption

Andy Mabbett is scum---with friends.

Allowing him to perform paid work for WMUK and to fraternize with WMUK directors, while also having a financial conflict of interest therewith, has GOT to be illegal in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... sonthewing

[Anthonyhcole]

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports
1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012: 2012 Annual Report (financial report to come)

Is it normal practice for UK charities to take more than six months to publish their accounts? When they finally do, I hope WMUK will take note of the rising concerns, and make it very clear in their accounting who has received what. Do they have an independent mechanism in place to review and evaluate the effectiveness of all of the projects and people they're funding?

I share the concerns of many here with regard to the appearance of nepotism and corruption. Provided there isn't any actual nepotism or corruption going on (often the best person for a task is already involved in an enterprise, and appearance of corruption does not corruption make), that impression can be dispelled by simple transparency and institutionalised independent review. However, more than one of the players there has a fundamentally poor grasp of the concept of conflict of interest, and that is seriously jeopardising the reputation of Wikimedia.

I'd like to see the Foundation appoint an indedpendent auditor to examine the governance and accounting at WMUK, and make recommendations. There are lots of new chapters and "themed organisations" (chapters based on topic rather than geography) in the pipeline, and any lessons from such a review may be very useful for the guidance of these new entities, some of whose budgets are likely to dwarf WMUK's.

[Volunteer Marek]

The section on Jimbo's talk page has been strangely quiet. Prioryman has been the first to weigh in now, with a follow-up by Beeblebrox:

Jimbo, in all honesty, if you're "not aware of the specific facts" then why are you commenting at all? It's not advisable for anyone to make sweeping comments about a situation without looking into it. Given your position as co-founder of Wikipedia and the weight that your words carry, I would think it especially inadvisable, to the point of irresponsibility, for you to intervene in such a way. Find out what the facts are, then comment, if you have to, or preferably sort things out behind the scenes with a minimum of controversy. This is not the first time you've made questionable interventions but publicly calling on people to resign while admittedly not knowing what the facts are is simply unacceptable. It's not the way that any responsible organisational leader should behave. Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just became aware of all this myself, but several facts are immediately apparent:
Roger is acting as a paid consultant at the same time as he is on the Board of WMUK. That's their problem but I share Jimbo's feelings on the matter, he needs to resign one post or the other
Looking at his contribs it does look like he may be slanting information in a fairly subtle way in some Gibraltar-related article
He is violating the username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME as he identifies as running a company called "Victuallers LTD". Couldn't find any web presence of said company, but he has spelled it right out on his userpage and in the WMUK declarations page that it is his company
Troubling to say the least. and WMUK really doesn't need any more scandal involving their higher-ups. The decent thing for Roger to do would be to step aside, to change his username, and to suggest edits rather than making them himself on any topic related to Gigraltar. Beeblebrox (talk)

Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =513224837

Speaking of Beeblebrox (who seems to hang out a lot at Jimbo's talk for some reason), in a different thread on Jimbo's page (this may be OT so please split off as needed - or perhaps move to the thread on experts getting treated like crpa) there's a quite nice quote from him, regarding academics and Wikipedia:

I think you would run into a significant problem there, namely that many academics treat Wikipedia with scorn and would probably not want to be involved with it. Their ivory tower perspective does not allow for the possibilty of "normal" people, unpaid volunteers no less, forming any sort of reference work of value. That this view is behind the times and will ultimately reflect very poorly on them has yet to penetrate the veil of academia for the most part, but there are a few notable exceptions.

Right..... so, it's the academia which will embarrass itself for not taking Wikipedia seriously, rather than Wikipedia embarrassing itself for treating credentialed experts like crap. Because it's all "ivory tower" over there. And this dude is an administrator AND an oversighter.

Checking his contributions really quick, this is a guy who has only 29% of them to actual articles, with the majority of his contributions being to user talk. 2.92 edits per page. In another words, a typical useless facebooker who contributes nothing himself to the "reference work of value"

[Anroth]

Allowing him to perform paid work for WMUK and to fraternize with WMUK directors, while also having a financial conflict of interest therewith, has GOT to be illegal in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... sonthewing

I doubt it. Mabbett doesnt have any control over if he gets microgrants etc. So while from my work with a charity in the past I am pretty sure the commission takes a dim view of Bamkins involvement, they would come down heavily on the people who approve money transfer to the friends, not the people recieving it unless something criminal is going on. (Which given Mabbett's work, thats not happening)

A legal expert on the UK's charity setup would probably be required here though.

[dogbiscuit]

Allowing him to perform paid work for WMUK and to fraternize with WMUK directors, while also having a financial conflict of interest therewith, has GOT to be illegal in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... sonthewing

I doubt it. Mabbett doesnt have any control over if he gets microgrants etc. So while from my work with a charity in the past I am pretty sure the commission takes a dim view of Bamkins involvement, they would come down heavily on the people who approve money transfer to the friends, not the people recieving it unless something criminal is going on. (Which given Mabbett's work, thats not happening)

A legal expert on the UK's charity setup would probably be required here though.

There is not an issue paying someone who is involved in the charity as long as the thing being paid for is value for money and they can demonstrate that they are getting specific benefit from the arrangement. This is normally covering things where you have, say a painter and decorator on the trustees who does his professional work at a discount for the charity - it would obviously be against the charity's interest to go elsewhere. However, the key thing is that you have to be able to demonstrate that this is the case.

Here we have something a bit murkier, where people having an interest seem to have been involved in setting up the charity and then are using the charity for their own ends. Even if no money is changing hands, it is wrong in principle. Gordon Jolly is on the case:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09216.html

Therefore.... >>>>????

"Make it so" ////Jean-Luc Picard

Gordo


On 18/09/12 08:55, Jon Davies wrote:
> Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance
> documents.
>
> On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com
> <mailto:gordon.joly at pobox.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our
> charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to
> all Trustees?
>
>
> http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... /nolan.htm
>
>
> Gordo
>

Check out the link to Nolan. It sets out in black and white terms that in British public life, and charities very much come under that, there is no room for grey, it is absolutely black and white that you have to be squeaky clean. Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

[TungstenCarbide]

In my estimation it's getting close to time to shut down Wikipediocracy. Those idiots are going to damage the project with their unfettered attacks on other users and crazy conspiracy theorizing in the project's name... Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =513183471

[dogbiscuit]

It gets better, because Wikipedians really don't understand the problem. On apparently attempting to refute the suggestion that Bamkin was inappropriately putting himself forward a Wikipedian replies:

Linky

It seems, from the Gibraltar Chronicle that the Gibraltar Museum "...made the first contact with Wikimedia UK to start the ball rolling". In that article, Roger Bamkin is identified as Wikimedia UK director. TheOverflow (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is correct, it appears that the Gibraltar Museum contacted the charity, and from that Bamkin has got a paid for consultancy while acting as a director of the charity. If this is correct, that is actually worse than using the name of Wikimedia to gain work.

Wikimedia UK need to explain what their role was in enabling Roger to gain the consultancy post.

[TungstenCarbide]

It gets better, because Wikipedians really don't understand the problem. On apparently attempting to refute the suggestion that Bamkin was inappropriately putting himself forward a Wikipedian replies:

Linky

It seems, from the Gibraltar Chronicle that the Gibraltar Museum "...made the first contact with Wikimedia UK to start the ball rolling". In that article, Roger Bamkin is identified as Wikimedia UK director. TheOverflow (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is correct, it appears that the Gibraltar Museum contacted the charity, and from that Bamkin has got a paid for consultancy while acting as a director of the charity. If this is correct, that is actually worse than using the name of Wikimedia to gain work.

Wikimedia UK need to explain what their role was in enabling Roger to gain the consultancy post.

The questions just keep piling up, don't they.

Did a volunteer team work on the project without fully understanding that the person(s) directing them were being paid, and that they were basically doing PR to promote a vacation destination?

Who got paid for exactly what? There's a vague disclosure on the WMUK website. Then there's all kinds of conjecture, with Prioryman insisting it's nothing of consequence. (By the way, what are the financial details of Prioryman's upcoming trip there?) More details need to see daylight.

Is the WMF at all interested in conflicts of interest generated by WMUK/paid editing? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =513276057

Even if there are no ill effects of the apparent conflict of interest, and Wikipedia sees some new content, how does it affect competing tourist destinations who've been left out?

Are there volunteers who would be happy to do these projects without pay? And did WMUK affiliated paid editor(s) displace these willing volunteers by virtue of their positions in WMUK?

Who are all the paid editors associated with WMUK. There needs to be a detailed accounting of their individual contracts and relationships. Is that really so much to ask in exchange for influence of the world's most popular reference website, along a volunteer army to help them?

Bamkin made this edit in which he failed to say anything of importance.

The Wheels at WP and WMUK clenched up tight today, that's for sure.

[Peter Damian]

I read through the Nolan principles, which are nicely worded http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... /nolan.htm .

One of them in particular struck me. "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." How many people here have experience of asking 'difficult' questions and being rebuffed by accusations of bad faith, of scare-mongering, hate speech etc, or just being blocked from the wiki or the mailing list? Hands up please.

In my estimation it's getting close to time to shut down Wikipediocracy. Those idiots are going to damage the project with their unfettered attacks on other users and crazy conspiracy theorizing in the project's name... Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

[thekohser]

...a name you've seen on Wikiversity before, Adambro. (The reason given is outright bullshit.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... disruption

Andy Mabbett is scum---with friends.

Oh my God -- Adambro?

This is funnier now.

[lilburne]

is Mr. Flying Pigs one of their business partners in all this? It's getting more confusing than a mid-career Agatha Christie novel. If he is, the muck of corruption grows riper still.

From Mr Mabbett's blog:

which puts QR codes into GLAMs, linking to Wikipedia articles, but detects the language used by the GLAM visitor’s mobile device and serves them an article in that language or offers the alternative languages or a Google translation if none is available.

Is it just me but when these lot write GLAM it immediately conjures up Gary Glitter.

[Anroth]

Here we have something a bit murkier, where people having an interest seem to have been involved in setting up the charity and then are using the charity for their own ends. Even if no money is changing hands, it is wrong in principle.

Ah, there must be some history I am unaware of, I thought Mabbett was just a member of WMUK rather than involved in any capacity.

Gordon Jolly is on the case:
-snip-
It sets out in black and white terms that in British public life, and charities very much come under that, there is no room for grey, it is absolutely black and white that you have to be squeaky clean. Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

Indeed, I did see that. However I think it applies to the WMUK leadership rather than Mabbett. Not that I have any liking for the flying pigs, but in this case I dont think he is at fault. Will be interesting to see the details of his trip to the rock and on what basis he is going/who funded it etc.

[dogbiscuit]

Here we have something a bit murkier, where people having an interest seem to have been involved in setting up the charity and then are using the charity for their own ends. Even if no money is changing hands, it is wrong in principle.

Ah, there must be some history I am unaware of, I thought Mabbett was just a member of WMUK rather than involved in any capacity.

Gordon Jolly is on the case:
-snip-
It sets out in black and white terms that in British public life, and charities very much come under that, there is no room for grey, it is absolutely black and white that you have to be squeaky clean. Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

Indeed, I did see that. However I think it applies to the WMUK leadership rather than Mabbett. Not that I have any liking for the flying pigs, but in this case I dont think he is at fault. Will be interesting to see the details of his trip to the rock and on what basis he is going/who funded it etc.

I don't think I have too much of an issue with Andy, (the above comment was written with Roger in mind) aside from it has to be crystal clear. I am uncomfortable that there are a group of mates that are hanging around together in the guise of WMUK members who have seen an opportunity to get some funds out of Wikipedia. You start seeing snippets like travel grants, micro-grants, expenses and so on, all for doing things that volunteers used to do for free. So if you are in the in-crowd, you can get hold of funds.

[Volunteer Marek]

is Mr. Flying Pigs one of their business partners in all this? It's getting more confusing than a mid-career Agatha Christie novel. If he is, the muck of corruption grows riper still.

From Mr Mabbett's blog:

which puts QR codes into GLAMs, linking to Wikipedia articles, but detects the language used by the GLAM visitor’s mobile device and serves them an article in that language or offers the alternative languages or a Google translation if none is available.

Is it just me but when these lot write GLAM it immediately conjures up Gary Glitter.

It's not just you, though my conjuration is David Johansen back in the day.

[Kelly Martin]

Andy Mabbett is obsessed with QR codes. They are actually a clever design, readable with any cheap digital camera and usable to carry a small amount of information, like a URL. They were originally intended for parcel tracking, inventory and other "boring" business applications.

People have talked for years about putting QR tags on tourist and historical sites, but there was never much substantial interest from local governments or businesses. Their utility or value for this purpose remains to be seen.

There are a couple of groups that have been aggressively promoting QR codes as an advertising strategy, but they persistently refuse to catch on outside of very limited contexts. The advent of malicious QR codes, and the fact that you can't tell a malicious QR code from a safe one until after you scan and open it, does not help. In general, one should not scan or use a QR code unless you know you can trust its source. For a QR code posted in public, that's never the case, as someone could easily have stickered a fake one over the top of it that goes to a malware site or does something equally harmful, and you might not even be able to tell that until after you click.

The main value of QR codes is to purveyors: it gives them tracking information about who is scanning the codes. But the data gathered is usually fairly limited.

[HRIP7]

I've found a little more about Geovation now:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.
Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-i ... challenge/

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to edit for free. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on-wiki to date.

[DanMurphy]

Here we have something a bit murkier, where people having an interest seem to have been involved in setting up the charity and then are using the charity for their own ends. Even if no money is changing hands, it is wrong in principle.

Ah, there must be some history I am unaware of, I thought Mabbett was just a member of WMUK rather than involved in any capacity.

Gordon Jolly is on the case:
-snip-
It sets out in black and white terms that in British public life, and charities very much come under that, there is no room for grey, it is absolutely black and white that you have to be squeaky clean. Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

Indeed, I did see that. However I think it applies to the WMUK leadership rather than Mabbett. Not that I have any liking for the flying pigs, but in this case I dont think he is at fault. Will be interesting to see the details of his trip to the rock and on what basis he is going/who funded it etc.

I don't think I have too much of an issue with Andy, (the above comment was written with Roger in mind) aside from it has to be crystal clear. I am uncomfortable that there are a group of mates that are hanging around together in the guise of WMUK members who have seen an opportunity to get some funds out of Wikipedia. You start seeing snippets like travel grants, micro-grants, expenses and so on, all for doing things that volunteers used to do for free. So if you are in the in-crowd, you can get hold of funds.

It is also fundamentally corrupting to Wikipedia's (pretended) central mission. You have a system where new article campaigns are set up, prizes are offered, and likely partisan editors from the local government and chamber of commerce are trained by Wikimedia trustees in exchange for money. So a flood of new articles is generated, based on who pays, not on questions of editorial merit, need, any sort of rational prioritization if you had set forth the task "make the best general encyclopedia possible." This is happening against the backdrop of ever increasing numbers of articles and the decline of active editors in absolute terms (and dropping off a cliff on a per article basis).

In this particular case, a Gibraltar enthusiast of some kind agreed to put his own website under a free license so its contents can be imported directly into Wikipedia. Is his work accurate? Who knows? Checked by subject area experts? Almost certainly not. Who will maintain it all? Bamkin and his fellow paid editors, directly or indirectly, for a while. Until the contract runs out and a new and better one comes along. Some of the "trainees" may stay with it for a while, perhaps as paid wings of a local government. But you'll expect them to drift away too. And then what?

In the case of Gibraltar, it's such a tiny place that there's relatively little harm that can be done directly. But as they seek to scale this up, the distortions across the encyclopedia (if this model does in fact get scaled up, as they're clearly hoping) will be vast, and happen fast.

I'm fairly pragmatic about the paid editing question. It is happening, it will happen, it has been happening for as long as Wikipedia has been a popular website. But the answer to this "problem" is the same answer to many of the problems generated by the underlying ideology. Proper editorial oversight.

Glam-a-rama-Gibraltaro-Monmouthpedia? It aint that. It's a way to bend the form of the rules to the will of specific commercial and personal interests that do not start with the question "How do we make a better encyclopedia?" but rather "How do we put this structure to work for us?"

[DanMurphy]

I've found a little more about Geovation now:

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.
Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-i ... challenge/

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

This is beginning to piss me off. They're basically trying to train tourists, with the help of local governments, that the best place to learn about stuff is Wikipedia? If I was a local official, I'd produce and control my content in house (assuming I decided that people should be discouraged from considering libraries and book purchases). Likely to be better, and will never have "Cheshire house is a big penis!" in the first sentence when people scan the code.

[HRIP7]

This is beginning to piss me off. They're basically trying to train tourists, with the help of local governments, that the best place to learn about stuff is Wikipedia? If I was a local official, I'd produce and control my content in house (assuming I decided that people should be discouraged from considering libraries and book purchases). Likely to be better, and will never have "Cheshire house is a big penis!" in the first sentence when people scan the code.

Actually, I missed quoting the best bit on that page:

Let's get rid of the Web Designer! Let's get rid of a 'closed', app which no one knows about! Let's get rid of the Sensor-editor.... and nurture an educated community who can be taught very, very simply how to create a Living Path! All along the route local societies and communities can build their very own Wikipedia articles, geo-tagged for Augmented Reality and maps in Cymraeg or English.

Looks like they're against Sensorship.

[dogbiscuit]

This is beginning to piss me off. They're basically trying to train tourists, with the help of local governments, that the best place to learn about stuff is Wikipedia? If I was a local official, I'd produce and control my content in house (assuming I decided that people should be discouraged from considering libraries and book purchases). Likely to be better, and will never have "Cheshire house is a big penis!" in the first sentence when people scan the code.

The interesting thing for me is that from the start we had an idea that there were issues. I think we might have been a bit Fae-centred and as he was the larger than life character, it diverted attention from the people who really were riding the gravy train, while Fae seems to have been a bit late to the party. It shows that there is an unhealthy culture, and the people involved in WMUK have been on the one hand talking the talk and putting up rules and statements about openness and ethics, while on the other hand they've been involved in at least enabling the use of funds for projects that at best challenge the ethos of Wikipedia, contrary to the aims of the organisation, and at worst are against charity law. It also makes you think about the enthusiastic support for Fae and how much it was important for this syndicate to keep the organisation intact with trusted trustees.

[DanMurphy]

This is beginning to piss me off. They're basically trying to train tourists, with the help of local governments, that the best place to learn about stuff is Wikipedia? If I was a local official, I'd produce and control my content in house (assuming I decided that people should be discouraged from considering libraries and book purchases). Likely to be better, and will never have "Cheshire house is a big penis!" in the first sentence when people scan the code.

The interesting thing for me is that from the start we had an idea that there were issues. I think we might have been a bit Fae-centred and as he was the larger than life character, it diverted attention from the people who really were riding the gravy train, while Fae seems to have been a bit late to the party. It shows that there is an unhealthy culture, and the people involved in WMUK have been on the one hand talking the talk and putting up rules and statements about openness and ethics, while on the other hand they've been involved in at least enabling the use of funds for projects that at best challenge the ethos of Wikipedia, contrary to the aims of the organisation, and at worst are against charity law. It also makes you think about the enthusiastic support for Fae and how much it was important for this syndicate to keep the organisation intact with trusted trustees.

What I don't get is why there isn't an insurgency to throw the bums out, pronto. I'm no legal expert, but I'd have resigned from such a board by now as a matter of personal legal protection, among other reasons.

I suppose the problem is the entire fiction of "Wikimedia UK." How many paying members? A couple of hundred (from memory)? How many of those attend meetings, participate on the mailing list. I guess far fewer still. And millions of dollars are simply going to be handed to them because they... well, actually, why?

Also worth considering is that while Wikimedia UK looks ethically compromised, part of the reason we know about it is because it has to try to comply with British law, and is in a language we all understand. How much money will be shoveled to smaller national groups, with less commonly spoken languages, and weaker legal environments? As I understand it, quite a bit. Anyone who doesn't expect that to be a straight up tails up snouts in corruptathon well, I have an interesting business opportunity in jackalope ranching I'd like to present to you offline.

[Anthonyhcole]

dogbiscuit wrote:

Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

I don't think he did point that out. He just asked a question. I don't see any breaches of Nolan's principles, yet.

[dogbiscuit]

dogbiscuit wrote:

Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

I don't think he did point that out. He just asked a question. I don't see any breaches of Nolan's principles, yet.

I thought his slightly graphically phrased post was a pretty clear statement that he believed that the Nolan tests had been failed and was wondering what the consequences were going to be. He reserved judgement on whether there had been anything specifically unlawful. How else do you interpret:

Therefore.... >>>>????

"Make it so" ////Jean-Luc Picard

[HRIP7]

dogbiscuit wrote:

Gordon succinctly points out that they have failed the Nolan test.

I don't think he did point that out. He just asked a question. I don't see any breaches of Nolan's principles, yet.

Well, Roger and Robin had £17,500 awarded to them as individuals – Roger included this item in his Declarations of interest: "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." – for a bid that promised that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians" (and that local cafés would be able to post their opening hours in Wikipedia, if I understand it correctly). This looks like he is deriving personal profit from committing Wikimedia UK services and resources.

Now according to the Nolan Committe Requirements, as given on the UK Wikimedia website:

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Co ... quirements

Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.

It looks like he and his company, Victuallers Ltd, profited, and I believe Andy Mabbett, John Cummings and Robin Owain are his friends. They were awarded £17,500 in part based on the promise that Wikimedia UK (of which Roger is a trustee) would be asked to run the project, and employ Wikipedians. There are also undisclosed earnings from Gibraltarpedia.

Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.

He has clearly violated that with Gibraltarpedia – Jimbo and admins like Secretlondon and Orangemike have made it very clear that it just looks terrible: there is an appearance of impropriety at the very least.

Accountability: The Trustees have a duty to comply with the law on all occasions, in accordance with the trust placed in them and in such a way as to preserve public confidence in Wikimedia, and are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public, funders and service users. They must submit themselves to what scrutiny is appropriate to their role.

I have not seen Roger answer his critics, on the mailing list or on Jimbo's talk page. (He did post a brief statement on Talk:DYK.) The question about Geovation has so far been ignored by all the trustees.

Openness: The Trustees must ensure that confidential material, including material about individuals is handled in accordance with due care and should be as open as possible about their decisions and action that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands.

Things like Geovation were not discussed within the wider Wikipedia community. We have not seen details of financial arrangements.

Honesty: The Trustees have a duty to declare any interests relating to their trustee role and to take steps to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Where private interests of a trustee conflict with their trustee duties they must resolve the conflict in favour of their trustee role. They must make relevant declarations of interest in the different circumstances and roles they play both within and outside Wikimedia.

I have so far seen no sign of such steps being taken.

Leadership: The Trustees should promote and support the principles of leadership by example. They must respect the role of the Chief Executive.

The example set is not a good one.

[DanMurphy]

Well, Roger and Robin had £17,500 awarded to them as individuals – Roger included this item in his Declarations of interest: "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." – for a bid that promised that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians" (and that local cafés would be able to post their opening hours in Wikipedia, if I understand it correctly). This looks like he is deriving personal profit from committing Wikimedia UK services and resources.

Are the details of their bid public? They should be. What are they contractually obligated to deliver? What if any metrics of success will be used? And how much of the £17,500 is profit/payment to Mr. Bamkin and his merry band?

[HRIP7]

Well, Roger and Robin had £17,500 awarded to them as individuals – Roger included this item in his Declarations of interest: "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." – for a bid that promised that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians" (and that local cafés would be able to post their opening hours in Wikipedia, if I understand it correctly). This looks like he is deriving personal profit from committing Wikimedia UK services and resources.

Are the details of their bid public? They should be. What are they contractually obligated to deliver? What if any metrics of success will be used? And how much of the £17,500 is profit/payment to Mr. Bamkin and his merry band?

I think I posted the most pertinent pages off the geovation website above:

http://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422
http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-i ... challenge/

There is one more page here:

http://www.geovation.org.uk/finalists-p ... -showcase/

Living Paths

The ‘Living Paths’ proposal, from a team of experienced Wikipedia editors, involves training the people and community groups along the Wales Coast Path to create Wikipedia content (text and multi-media) about the features of interest and historical events which are local to them. It gives responsibility for choosing, writing and maintaining that content to the people who know the area best, with the support of experienced volunteer Wikipedia editors from around the globe, who will help them to maintain it and translate it into other languages.

That content – with other content delivery partners such as Cadw and the Welsh National Library – will then be available to anyone – including other GeoVation competitors – for reuse, even commercially, under free and open licences, at no charge whatsoever. The imparted digital skills and increased confidence will also allow recipients to cascade training to neighbouring communities.

The content will also be available in accessible, mobile friendly format, to the path’s visitors, through the use of technically-innovative QRpedia QR codes, which will deliver articles in the visitor’s preferred language, either immediately, or later if no mobile data signal is available.

The project, based on the successfully-proven work done by the team in Monmouthpedia, will use Wikipedia’s existing facilities to host and serve that content, inline with its community-derived polices and procedures, at no cost, in perpetuity.

The project will also use Wikipedia’s existing, multi-platform mobile apps, and be available via third-party apps and web services, to display geo-tagged articles local to the user, or to a point of their choosing. Rather than a ‘closed’ approach, this project will be ‘open’ – from the roots up! Totally organic, home grown and with global muscle!

Sounds wonderful, except for the fact that this, being listed under the trustee's Declarations of interest, appears to have been for personal profit, and leverages Wikimedia UK and the services of unpaid volunteers.

Other mentions on that website: link

Mentions on the UK Wikimedia website are scarce, only five pages altogether. There is one mention here, under Grants programme:

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Activ ... _programme

Macrogrants are for grants over £250, typically up to £2,000, and have included activities such as Geovation (proposing to dramatically increase the coverage of Welsh costal paths in many language Wikipedias).

For background information, see:

2012 Activity Plan/Project grants

However, the page linked to for background information is empty.

(As an aside, it also seems rather hard to find out who the £30,000 in Travel Grants mentioned on that page went to. The pages indicated are http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Activ ... vel_grants and http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Travel_Grants_budget – these mention scholarships and nameless attendees, as does this page http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships but there is no indication whatsoever on these pages who the money went to. Perhaps there is a page containing this information, but I am unable to find it.)

Then there are a few minor mentions of Geovation here:

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports_30Jun12

including:

[Robin] GeoVation 22-24 June 2012 a success (RB to report)
Geovation - Robin Owain, Andy Mabbutt, John Cummings and me got to finals with Robin's proposal for Wales Coast Path
July 14 - Robin and Roger to win Geovation funding? Relationship to WMUK

and that's essentially it. Two others have already been quoted in previous posts, and the last one is a very minor mention of "Geovation-like contests".

Rather meagre.

[HRIP7]

Also a video from this page:
Roger and Robin's segment begins at 2:32.

[thekohser]

Once by a name you've seen on Wikiversity before, Adambro.

A little bird tells me that "Adambro" has a real name of Adam Brookes, not Andy Mabbett. Eric, can you prove your claim? I mean, "Andy" and "Adam" aren't even the same first name.

Edit: Apologies to Eric, as I misunderstood.

[thekohser]

Looks like they're against Sensorship.

But they're in favor of fisting.

There are two parts, fist we meet local groups...

[SB_Johnny]

Once by a name you've seen on Wikiversity before, Adambro.

A little bird tells me that "Adambro" has a real name of Adam Brookes, not Andy Mabbett. Eric, can you prove your claim? I mean, "Andy" and "Adam" aren't even the same first name.

I think he meant Adam was one of the blocking admins, not that he's the same guy.

[HRIP7]

Looks like they're against Sensorship.

But they're in favor of fisting.

There are two parts, fist we meet local groups...

I think he meant Adam was one of the blocking admins, not that he's the same guy.

Quite. (Unblocking admin, in fact.)

[Vigilant]

I have a couple of questions:

At what point does the WMF sit up and take notice?

Why does wikipediocracy have to be the ethics watchdog for the WMF?

Why doesn't the WMF have someone watching the store for these obvious conflicts of interest?

What is it that the WMF does?

[thekohser]

I have a couple of questions:

At what point does the WMF sit up and take notice?

Why does wikipediocracy have to be the ethics watchdog for the WMF?

Why doesn't the WMF have someone watching the store for these obvious conflicts of interest?

What is it that the WMF does?

I'll give you the answer to Question 4 -- the WMF's purpose is to sustain its own gravy train by perpetuating the myth that a community-run project that ran itself for years now requires bags and bags full of money to keep operating.

Now that you have the answer to that question, you should be able to derive the answers to the first three questions.

[SB_Johnny]

The trouble with the likes of Wiki UK is that they believe their own publicity. They didn't really raise lots of money for WMF, the WMF kindly diverted the fundraising page so that any hits there went via Wiki UK. They have then frittered a large about of money on a bureaucracy.

I think I remember something about the WMF saying shortly after the fundraiser that they wouldn't be doing that again, and that this apparently caused a lot of upset to the chapters people (presumably the thread about it will be on WR somewhere). Are there any updates on that?

This also makes the funds dissemination committee's membership even more suspect than it would have been otherwise. While the WMF doesn't have the best record of making decisions, it seems that allowing these "chapters" to make them might be the worst decision of all.

Jimmy must be furious at this point... I hope we'll get some nice leaks about this someday, because things must be getting pretty ugly in the cabal channels.

[Vigilant]

I have a couple of questions:

At what point does the WMF sit up and take notice?

Why does wikipediocracy have to be the ethics watchdog for the WMF?

Why doesn't the WMF have someone watching the store for these obvious conflicts of interest?

What is it that the WMF does?

I'll give you the answer to Question 4 -- the WMF's purpose is to sustain its own gravy train by perpetuating the myth that a community-run project that ran itself for years now requires bags and bags full of money to keep operating.

Now that you have the answer to that question, you should be able to derive the answers to the first three questions.

You'd think that reasobly intelligent and self-interested people, regardless of whether they are the grifters as you propose, would view with great alarm the impending unraveling of their gravy train by a bunch of amateur hacks like Roger Bampkin and Ashley van Haeften...

I would think that preventing anyone from shitting in the punch bowl would be the primary concern.
If your stance is to be believed, then the only thing the WMF has going for it is their reputation.
Why let these guys sully that in such a ham-handed and trivial manner?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

[DanMurphy]

Ideas are pouring in on the Wikimedia UK mailing list.

From Doug Taylor, WMUK vice chair:

I'm retired now, so I'm lucky that I don't have to make money to live, but I do feel it is important that we don't prevent those who have to earn their livings from making use of their abilities. It seems to me that it's becoming increasingly difficult for WMUK to involve itself in activities that it quite properly ought to be supporting. How much longer before somebody complains that a Wikipedian In Residence is earning money from "paid editing"?

From Fabian Tompsett:

Several months ago I raised with Jon Davies the idea of setting up a trading arm on a co-operative model, primarily with a view to allowing Wikimedians to provide training on a paid basis. This could include Mediawiki coding in general above and beyond immediate Wikimedia sites. This issues - and I suspect there will be more - reinforces my view that some sort of trading arm would be useful...

Perhaps the Board could consider:

1) Organising an effective discussion of what role Board members should play amongst the whole membership.
2) Linked to this could be the establishment of a social enterprise through which Wikimedians could gain paid work in an open and moderated way - including revenue generation for WMUK.
3) Development of a framework to take matters forward, which, in my view, should include balloting the membership about any limitations above and beyond the legal minimum which they might consider appropriate for board members.

[TungstenCarbide]

This also makes the funds dissemination committee's membership even more suspect than it would have been otherwise. While the WMF doesn't have the best record of making decisions, it seems that allowing these "chapters" to make them might be the worst decision of all.

Chapters were set up for more than fundraising, as I recall. There were people unhappy with the WMF being too 'American'. Before long there'll be a whole bunch of these plump little sacks full of squiggling appetites.

Jimmy must be furious at this point... I hope we'll get some nice leaks about this someday, because things must be getting pretty ugly in the cabal channels.

Jimmy is so passé, I wonder who's really running things nowadays.

[HRIP7]

Jimmy is so passé, I wonder who's really running things nowadays.

Perhaps he should start a fork. You know, flagged revisions, image filter, no autofellatio images, no paid editing, that sort of thing.

[EricBarbour]

Jimmy is so passé, I wonder who's really running things nowadays.

Evidently, no one is. So the insiders are trying to set up individual feudal kingdoms, with money-making as the primary focus.
To hell with that "volunteer-written encyclopedia".

Once again, this is nothing. The abuses happening on some language Wikipedias, and within their corresponding Wikimedia chapters,
make WMUK look like a kiddy playground.

"You might also want to look into the insanity regarding the proposal for multiple Belarusian Wikipedias, which was basically a proposal to have separate Wikipedias for each of Belarus' major political parties. It seems that nearly all of the Eastern European language wikis are being used as political organs by national political parties. (Which is why I laughed in the face at Coren's idiotic comment the other day that all Wikipedias share the same verifiability and neutrality policies.)"

[DanMurphy]

Roger Bamkin urges everyone to calm down, ignore the bad people, and assume good faith.

Hi, I havent read the wikiocracy article, but I can guess its content. I don't read that kind of stuff as that site has upset some of my fellow wikipedians and I don't intend to upset myself. However it is important to be open. I don't think its any secret that John Cummings and I are being paid by the Gibraltar government to deliver training and to create QRpedia plaques and to show them how to label up their collections. Thats what enables us to travel there and to allow John to be there training for the next eight weeks (at least).

The idea that we are removing (ed: I assume he meant to write "adding") bias in wikipedia is silly. If I thought that was happening then '''we would stop immediately'''. So can I see some evidence that it is not happening? Now, one of the most important aspects of Gibraltar is the cruise ships. I remember that Anne wrote a DYK hook that focussed on the explosion and death of a worker very near the cruise ship terminal. That hook ran on the front page and it is still an important part of [[Gibraltar Cruise Terminal]]. If I wanted to create bias then I'd polish this detail away. I'm pleased to see it hasn't changed and the story is excatly as Anne wrote it.

I am ignoring a lot of the silly debates (elsewhere) but I'm happy to answer simple questions here that assume good faith. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding: As a good Wikipedian, I always assume good faith of course. I have good faith questions about the contents of this template which was deleted by Mr. Bamkin shortly after the following question was asked on his talk page:

Hi there Victuallers! I just noticed {{Gibpediavote}}, and despite the template text I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was for. Could you give me any more details about the program that uses this text? We may well be able to find a more efficient way of doing things than the way they are set up now. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

Doug Taylor (RexxS) has posted on Jimbo's talk page, and I have asked him some questions:

I think you'll find the "> £2m payback on £50K investment" refers to the benefit of extra tourists to Monmouth and Wales which is predicted to arise - effectively the equivalent value of publicity against the investment Monmouth CC made. The launch of Monmouthpedia generated over 100 news articles and more than 1,000 tweets worldwide. It's difficult to be precise about money equivalence in these cases, but I'd guess that's not far off the mark. It's pure nonsense to think that Roger is talking about receiving £2M himself, and it's quite disingenuous to make that sort of implication as Andreas does above. If Jimmy wants to become "aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case", then my email is enabled - or a quick call to the WMUK office will get him my phone number and I'd be glad to chat at any time and fill in any details he wants. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Now, how much of the £17,500 that Roger and Robin were awarded for the Wikimedia UK Geovation project goes into their personal pockets? I am asking because this is part of Roger's Declaration of interest ("Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales."), and because he and Robin (rather than Wikimedia UK) are named as winners on the Geovation website. Yet, as shown below, the project plan involves Wikimedia UK being asked to run the project. Could you or Roger explain? And what about the remaining £100,000 they are hoping to raise? Who will receive this money, if it is raised? What do you say to people like Orangemike below, who seem concerned about mixed roles and the conflicts of interest between Roger's paid consultancy role and his role as a trustee? JN466 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be offered to highest bidders as a marketing tool? Roger, Steve Virgin and others are basically telling interested towns and cities that for an investment of £50k in Roger's Wikipedia project, they can get £2m worth of free publicity. For reference, see [2], or see Steve Virgin's blog ("277 news stories across 36 countries and created immense value to the town of Monmouth and to the technological innovation-driven notion of hyper-localism using multi-lingual Wikipedia pages") or business website ("Monmouthpedia – managed press campaign for the launch of the World’s first ever Wikipedia Town in Wales..300 media stories across 40 countries..worth millions to Monmouth"). The Gibraltarpedia project is widely perceived and reported as a cost-effective project to market Gibraltar as a tourism destination ("Gibraltarpedia: A new Way to Market the Rock", "... the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success.")

Now, given that the project offers such good value for money, it is to be expected that people will continue to queue up at Roger's door to be picked as the next Wikipedia town, as they have been; and in the process, Roger makes the selection, and is paid. How is that compatible with the Nolan principles quoted on Wikimedia UK's site? In particular, Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.? Or Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.? These are just the first two. How can Roger act personally as a paid consultant for projects involving Wikimedia UK, advertising WMUK involvement to his private clients, and be a director of Wikimedia UK at the same time, and comply with the Nolan principles? JN466 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)