Gibraltarpedia - rock solid

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:43 pm

dogbiscuit wrote: The only thing surprising is how brazen the Gibraltar project has been.

After many years, I have come to realise that the most easily concealed form of corruption is the kind that is the boldest and most brazen. Advertise it well, although don't call it by its true name. Try and involve most of the people who would be your internal critics – especially if you are able to implicate them in it. Label it in a way that is familiar and reassuring to everyone. Publicise it widely. That way, no one will imagine it is corruption. They think that everyone else will have scrutinised it carefully, and that because others have endorsed it there can be no possibility of it being what it really is. People always imagine that corruption involves only secrecy and back-handers in dark places, and suitcases full of money.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:46 pm

Here is an item posted on the WMUK blog:

Volunteer’s efforts win Gibraltar the right to be the first Wikipedia ‘city’

[Gibraltarpedia logo]
Tyson Lee Holmes was with friends when he read about ‘Monmouthpedia, the World’s First Wikipedia Town.’ His first thought was, wouldn’t it be great if we could do it here, in Gibraltar? So, next day, he took the initiative. He contacted the Minister for Tourism, Neil Costa, and asked for permission to talk to the team behind Monmouthpedia.

Tyson’s initiative, in talking to Neil Costa, and instigating an approach on behalf of this British Overseas territory, greatly impressed the Monmouthpedia organisers, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings. They had already been inundated with offers from people looking for their city to be the world’s second Wikipedia town. Offers had come in from the Czech Republic, the USA, Norway and elsewhere. None had such strong political support behind them.

Within a few weeks, the Monmouthpedia team was in Gibraltar. They met Tyson and the Gibraltar’s Director of Heritage, Clive Finlayson. Next, they met the Minister of Tourism, Neil Costa. In Tyson’s company, the team toured Gibraltar and experienced its rich cultural heritage first hand. To end the visit, they met with a large group of committed local Wikipedian volunteers and discussed how a project might be taken forward in Gibraltar. They felt that Tyson had all the key ingredients in place, so much so, that some preparatory work has already started, with Tyson creating articles, and volunteer editors already showing interest in starting work.

Roger Bamkin, who co-created QRpedia and Monmouthpedia said: “As the GibraltarpediA project evolves, QRpedia codes for each new Gibraltar Wikipedia page will be created. The botanic gardens, the nature reserve, all the notable historical monuments across this culturally rich territory, will have specially designed plaques that link to Wikipedia. Anyone with a smartphone scanning the QR code on these signs will see Wikipedia pages about these cultural treasures, in their own language if available, sent directly to their phone.”

Monmouthpedia Project Leader John Cummings concluded: “Gibraltar is a truly multicultural place, squeezed on an isthmus between Europe and Africa. Because it is so close to both Morocco and Spain there are opportunities to reach out to cultures on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar. Indeed, that is what we hope to do as the project unfold.”

This post was written by Steve Virgin.

If you visit the original post, you will see a large graphic that says "gibraltarpedia.org". That domain was registered 23 June by Victuallers/Roger J Bamkin. It redirects you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. Anyone going to gaibraltarpedia.org and ending up at WP would reasonably assume it is a Wikipedia-endorsed and sponsored project.

The date of that posting is 12 July 2012. According to the WMUK "declarations of interest", "At the end of June Roger signed a contract with the Government of Gibraltar. There is no known COI as WMUK does not have a relationship with this Government but it is hoped that one may develop. Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin". So Steve Virgin, Bamkin's business partner, posted an item on the WMUK blog talking up a project in which he apparently had a pecuniary interest.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:54 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote: The only thing surprising is how brazen the Gibraltar project has been.
After many years, I have come to realise that the most easily concealed form of corruption is the kind that is the boldest and most brazen. Advertise it well, although don't call it by its true name. Try and involve most of the people who would be your internal critics – especially if you are able to implicate them in it. Label it in a way that is familiar and reassuring to everyone. Publicise it widely. That way, no one will imagine it is corruption. They think that everyone else will have scrutinised it carefully, and that because others have endorsed it there can be no possibility of it being what it really is. People always imagine that corruption involves only secrecy and back-handers in dark places, and suitcases full of money.

Well said.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:55 pm

thekohser wrote:And, predictably, the "cover up" process quietly begins.

Dan, could you please provide links for the quotes you copied above? I'm not seeing them on Jimbo's talk page, nor on the Wikimedia UK mailing list.

They are from the "did you know" talk page discussion.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:01 pm

thekohser wrote:Dan, could you please provide links for the quotes you copied above? I'm not seeing them on Jimbo's talk page, nor on the Wikimedia UK mailing list.

I found it.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:03 pm

thekohser wrote:And, predictably, the "cover up" process quietly begins.

Dan, could you please provide links for the quotes you copied above? I'm not seeing them on Jimbo's talk page, nor on the Wikimedia UK mailing list.

Try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... d_you_know

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:09 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Oh grasshopper, I probably know far more about human behavior than you ever will.

Well I dont doubt having a deep understanding of human behavior helps you manipulate readers through use of language. Doesnt make it very professional. Its well suited to the likes of Fox, the Daily Mail, Sun though.

They call themselves journalists too.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:14 pm

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Dan, could you please provide links for the quotes you copied above? I'm not seeing them on Jimbo's talk page, nor on the Wikimedia UK mailing list.
I found it myself. I wonder if Dan deliberately ignored two requests for links? What's up with that?

What's up with that is I didn't feel like doing your bidding on your timetable. Was faster for me to point the page out and let you go get it then going and getting it for you myself.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:16 pm

Anroth wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Oh grasshopper, I probably know far more about human behavior than you ever will.
Well I dont doubt having a deep understanding of human behavior helps you manipulate readers through use of language. Doesnt make it very professional. Its well suited to the likes of Fox, the Daily Mail, Sun though.

They call themselves journalists too.

Anroth, what are your credentials? Dan Murphy is an accomplished journalist. Let me guess -- are you a professor of Canon Law? What Murphy did above is simply cut to the chase. He is not required to painfully "assume good faith" regarding an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated that it has not earned that courtesy.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:19 pm

DanMurphy wrote:What's up with that is I didn't feel like doing your bidding on your timetable. Was faster for me to point the page out and let you go get it then going and getting it for you myself.

Fair enough. However, if you could get into the habit of providing a URL link when you extensively quote material from another site, it makes it more useful to all readers, not just "my bidding".

I've modified my snippy post above.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:26 pm

thekohser wrote: What Murphy did above is simply cut to the chase. He is not required to painfully "assume good faith" regarding an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated that it has not earned that courtesy.

Its not a matter of assuming good faith. Its lazy reporting at best, at worst its deliberately misleading. He is twisting comments from Professor Finlayson, not a WMF statement.

Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.”

You want to twist that to 'Wikipedia is encouraging edit-warring!' go ahead. But it doesnt say that and any attempt to make it do so needs to be pointed out for the hackery it is.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:34 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Here is an item posted on the WMUK blog:

If you visit the original post, you will see a large graphic that says "gibraltarpedia.org". That domain was registered 23 June by Victuallers/Roger J Bamkin. It redirects you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. Anyone going to gaibraltarpedia.org and ending up at WP would reasonably assume it is a Wikipedia-endorsed and sponsored project.

The date of that posting is 12 July 2012. According to the WMUK "declarations of interest", "At the end of June Roger signed a contract with the Government of Gibraltar. There is no known COI as WMUK does not have a relationship with this Government but it is hoped that one may develop. Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin". So Steve Virgin, Bamkin's business partner, posted an item on the WMUK blog talking up a project in which he apparently had a pecuniary interest.

I just made much the same point on the Wikimedia UK mailing list:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09182.html

Just a minor correction – I did not write "long string of UK directors", but "Wikimedia UK directors getting involved in a long string of similar for-profit Wikipedia-based marketing campaigns, all conducted with the apparent seal of approval of Wikimedia UK."

The reason I said that is because there has been significant interest from other towns and cities. John Virgin, posting on the Wikimedia UK blog in July, said,

---o0o---

Tyson’s initiative, in talking to Neil Costa, and instigating an approach on behalf of this British Overseas territory, greatly impressed the Monmouthpedia organisers, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings. They had already been inundated with offers from people looking for their city to be the world’s second Wikipedia town. Offers had come in from the Czech Republic, the USA, Norway and elsewhere. None had such strong political support behind them.

http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/tag/gibraltarpedia/

---o0o---

And offers here means business offers, because it involves paid consultancy jobs for their companies. There is clearly enough paid work here for many years. Now it would be a different thing – still untenable, but differently so – if the revenue from that paid consultancy were to accrue to Wikimedia UK or the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than to the consultants personally. But they don't: they are private earnings. I have nothing against successful business ideas and private ventures, but in this case Roger's Wikimedia UK directorship is an element of how these services are marketed, and how they are reported upon in the press, e.g. here:

---o0o---

IT was the cyber project that made the sleepy market town of Monmouth a internet phenomenon.

And Monmouthpedia has been so successful the mastermind behind the project is taking the idea to the British Territory of Gibraltar.

Roger Bamkin is director of Wikimedia UK - the charity that supports Wikipedia's mission - and the co-creator of Monmouthpedia.

He picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world hoping to be the second Wikipedia town.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Monmouthp ... 0297237924

---o0o---

How is this not a gravy train?

I understand that Steve Virgin, as a former Wikimedia UK director, is also in business for himself, together with John Cummings and Roger.

And according to 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."

There is a reference to it on this page:

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

under the heading RB, saying, "Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more".

What is this Geovation bid? What involvement, if any, does Wikimedia UK have in the project? What is this 100K funding? Does this too involve paid consultancy work?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:37 pm

I marvel that a professor said "if things go on that is nasty", failing to navigate fairly simple subject-verb agreement. Is English not his first language?

But anyway, for those of us who know the real Wikipedia, I think it's not much of a "twist" to say that 'Wikipedia is encouraging edit-warring!' here. It's more of an insider's angle, rather than a manipulative twist.

Hardly "hackery" at all, that's for sure.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:50 pm

thekohser wrote:Hardly "hackery" at all, that's for sure.

I hold journalists to a higher standard. If it had been most others here saying that I would have let it slide.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:54 pm

DanMurphy wrote:This guy Mike Peel is a hoot, and explains how many angels can dance on the head of a WMUK pin.

Mike Peel is a member of the Wikimedia UK board, and he is also a member of the newly formed Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) in charge of millions of dollars of funds. The fact that he does not see anything wrong in this present situation does not inspire confidence as to his likely decisions as a member of the FDC.

To be clear, I don't think he is a bad person: I just think he is unable to see anything wrong with it if his mates, who have invested so much time and energy in Wikipedia, finally profit financially from their involvement in Wikipedia. However, that is not the correct attitude if you are in charge of administering millions of dollars of donations. Whether someone is a mate or not should not make any difference, because that is not what people gave you the money for.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:10 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:The interesting thing about this is that Jimbo sometimes does do the right thing, even if he is not doing it for the same reasons. He so hates the idea of other people using Wikipedia as a money-earning project that he will have to slap this down, because if he doesn't, all the things he claims are wrong about paid editing are going to happen. What is worse, the WMF sponsored organisations are enabling this activity and providing a screen for doing it.

The only thing surprising is how brazen the Gibraltar project has been. Reminds me of Fae, so busy believing that they are the chosen ones that they forget to consider what their actions look like from elsewhere. Wiki UK is a pretty broken organisation which is not aligned to the aims of Wikipedia.

You make two good points, although the "hates other people" emphasis is a bit tendentious.

1. Wales definitely continues to hold a very idealistic, not to say utopian, view of Wikipedia. It is a great public good, a non-commercial and non-commercialized resource in his view and he maintains a hardline "traditional" attitude to paid editing and COI editing. It's not a matter of keeping others from profiting to him, but rather part of the project's mission that he sees as being necessarily violated by formally bringing all guidelines and standard practices for COI editors into accord with actual practice and common sense. He doesn't want paid editing, period. (Again: a good anarcho-syndicalist, a bad Randoid...)

2. Wikimedia UK is starting to look like a small clique with more money than sense, out for personal enrichment. The Foundation is going to have to start looking at reigning these jokers in pretty soon, i think — the inevitable public financial scandal that these morons are going to cause will be damaging to the project. Unfortunately the foundation is reactive rather than proactive, so I imagine that WMUK hubris, greed, and stupidity is gonna get worse before things get better.

RfB

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:25 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Wales definitely continues to hold a very idealistic, not to say utopian, view of Wikipedia. It is a great public good, a non-commercial and non-commercialized resource in his view and he maintains a hardline "traditional" attitude to paid editing and COI editing. It's not a matter of keeping others from profiting to him, but rather part of the project's mission that he sees as being necessarily violated by formally changing all guidelines to match actually existing reality on these matters.

I agree. As far as I see it, Jimbo is trying to balance several conflicting considerations.

If PR editing is openly tolerated, the public's perception of Wikipedia's moral standing will suffer a damage that is different from the damage it suffers from random vandalism, or covert PR editing. In the latter case, you can blame the individuals that act against Wikipedia policy and betray the public's trust, while Wikipedia itself can be presented as pure, and an innocent victim. That is indeed a strong argument, from a public relations point of view, against allowing open conflict-of-interest editing.

The difficulty is that enforcement of the ban on conflict-of-interest editing is presently very uneven. First of all, it is not entirely forbidden, even though Jimbo says it should not happen. Secondly, it very much depends on who does it, and how much they are "of the body". Thirdly, given that Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, it is actually impossible to enforce such a ban. Fourthly, it is inherently unfair if an anonymous person can take potshots at you or your business via your Wikipedia article, but you are called out for conflict-of-interest editing if you remove defamation (and there is no efficient mechanism for you to have it removed quickly just by asking someone for help).

The question is, what is worse? A Wikipedia that in conception is pure, but is continually exploited because it lacks effective defences against defamation and puffery, or a Wikipedia that legalises and supervises conflict-of-interest editing? It's not unlike the recurrent discussions around legalising drugs in a way.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:42 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Here is an item posted on the WMUK blog:
There is no known COI as WMUK does not have a relationship with this Government but it is hoped that one may develop.

People should learn to punctuate to be unambiguous.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:43 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: 2. Wikimedia UK is starting to look like a small clique with more money than sense, out for personal enrichment. The Foundation is going to have to start looking at reigning these jokers in pretty soon, i think — the inevitable public financial scandal that these morons are going to cause will be damaging to the project. Unfortunately the foundation is reactive rather than proactive, so I imagine that WMUK hubris, greed, and stupidity is gonna get worse before things get better.

RfB

I'll take the slap

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.

What we now need to look back on is who the reconstituted Wiki UK were, because I think we will find that instead of idealistic Wikiphiles, there might be a common thread of people who recognised early on that there was a way to make a business out of the chapter.

I still think that Monmouthopedia and GLAM make a lot of sense, and that you probably need some sort of organisation around them, as Wikipedia does not live in a vacuum but needs to interact with real people, so this is doubly wrong as it undermines the potential for good works that was envisaged for Wiki UK.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:39 pm

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.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:46 pm

And we're on reddit's top 100 for the day...

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comm ... _who_edit/

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:40 pm

From the Wikimedia UK chair, Chris Keating:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09189.html

Dear all,

Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated.

1. "Paid editing"
To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing". We have never actively decided not to have one, we just don't - this is really the Wikipedia community's call not ours.

2. Gibraltarpedia
Wikimedia UK's sole involvement with this to date has been the despatch of a few booklets. Really, with most organisations, we'd just have sent the booklets, and it's only because of Roger's position that it took a board discussion to do so.

For the future - at the meeting last weekend, the Board decided that it would be an interesting project to get more involved with. We looked at a draft memorandum of understanding that would enable us to be clear about the terms of engagement with the project in future, and thought it needed some more work. Part of that work would involve defining shared expectations and establishing what Wikimedia UK's involvement would add - and if we found that "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist destination" was all Gibraltar cared about, I doubt we would proceed any further.

I would also point out that we have not received any proposals for us to spend any money or use more than a trivial amount of staff time on this.

3. Conflicts of interest
Our conflict of interest policy is available here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_o ... est_Policy and is supported by the Declarations of Interest register here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest. The Conflict of Interest policy is modelled quite closely on Charity Commission guidance and is very clear that we can't pay our board members, and that if they have a conflict of interest on a particular item they have to recuse themselves. We have followed this policy in all discussions related to the subjects mentioned in this thread.

There is some debate on the Board about whether we need to develop this policy further, and members' views are welcome.

4. QRpedia
QRpedia.org is owned by Roger Bamkin and Terence Eden, who have been maintaining it, along with qrwp.org (where the "qrpedia" links resolve), as volunteers. An agreement between Roger and Terence on the one hand and Wikimedia UK on the other is in the works, shouldn't take more than a few weeks to finish off, and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of Wikipedia-linked QR codes in future.

Thanks,

Chris
Chair, Wikimedia UK

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:55 pm

Chris Keating explains it away neatly.

3. Conflicts of interest
Our conflict of interest policy is available here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_o ... est_Policy and is supported
by the Declarations of Interest register here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest. The Conflict of

Interest policy is modelled quite closely on Charity Commission guidance and is very clear that we can't pay our board members, and that if they have a conflict of interest on a particular item they have to recuse themselves. We have followed this policy in all discussions related to the subjects mentioned in this thread.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09189.html

This does not address the COI regarding Wikipedia. Nor does it resolve the COI with respect to the charity. The problem is that the charity supports the work of Wikipedia, which is an information resource used by billions of people across the world. Directors of this charity are using their influence, gained through their connection with it to get remuneration. I'm not sure how the UKCC rules cover that.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:09 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Chris Keating explains it away neatly.
3. Conflicts of interest
Our conflict of interest policy is available here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_o ... est_Policy and is supported
by the Declarations of Interest register here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest. The Conflict of

Interest policy is modelled quite closely on Charity Commission guidance and is very clear that we can't pay our board members, and that if they have a conflict of interest on a particular item they have to recuse themselves. We have followed this policy in all discussions related to the subjects mentioned in this thread.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09189.html
This does not address the COI regarding Wikipedia. Nor does it resolve the COI with respect to the charity. The problem is that the charity supports the work of Wikipedia, which is an information resource used by billions of people across the world. Directors of this charity are using their influence, gained through their connection with it to get remuneration. I'm not sure how the UKCC rules cover that.

It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:11 pm

Ah I've found this:

http://www.burges-salmon.com/Sectors/Ch ... /6769.aspx

This is company law, but a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. Section 175:

Use of information or opportunities - this could arise where a trustee/director is in a situation where he can use the charity's information or opportunities, either to the benefit of himself or to the benefit of a competitor organisation with which he is involved.

OK - could it be established that Bamkin could not have come to a financial arrangement with the client without using the opportunity provided by his involvement with WMUK? Easily. Without the involvement, he is simply a Greg Kohs, from the Midlands. Gibraltar government is not going to pay him for that. It was his involvement with WMUK that led both to the opportunity, and the involvement. Blatant conflict of interest.

The Charity Commission version of this is more vague, but comes under 'indirect gain'.

dogbiscuit wrote:However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work.

Precisely. I've always thought that if you have a gut feeling something is wrong, then something is legally wrong too, but you have to read the law carefully.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:20 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).

WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if these volunteers were apprised of this.

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:26 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).
WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if they were apprised of this.

Exactly. Did WMUK fund Bamkin and/or Cummings initial trips to Gibraltar? Would Bamkin have been able to get meetings with government officials if he was not a Trustee of WMUK (and former Chair)? Is WMUK paying for the "training sessions" in Gibraltar?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:16 pm

First Fae, now this ... I must say, WMUK is the gift that keeps on giving.

Wasn't there an earlier attempt at forming a UK chapter that failed? Weren't there some sketchy characters involved in that too?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:42 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote: Exactly. Did WMUK fund Bamkin and/or Cummings initial trips to Gibraltar? Would Bamkin have been able to get meetings with government officials if he was not a Trustee of WMUK (and former Chair)? Is WMUK paying for the "training sessions" in Gibraltar?

Thomas Dalton (rightly) said on the Wikimedia UK mailing list that there was insufficient "demarcation between Roger's roles as a trustee, a Wikipedia volunteer and a Gibraltar contractor. The confusion is primarily between the latter two, but that should still be of concern to the chapter."

I too thought he underestimated the confusion between the consultant and WMUK director roles.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 09196.html

Well said, though I think the confusion between the roles of trustee and contractor is greater than you indicate – simply because a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK may be a more attractive proposition to a client than a consultant who is not – because a client may set greater store by an assurance that content will not be "nasty" if it is made by a consultant who is also a director of Wikimedia UK.

Such assurances were reportedly made. From the article "Gibraltarpedia: A New Way to Market the Rock":

'As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.” '

http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25479

A client unfamiliar with Wikipedia would have an expectation that a director of Wikimedia UK would be able to deliver on the promise that disagreeable content would be reverted in short order – or at least more able than someone who was not a Wikimedia director.

Incidentally, here is a QRpedia-related microgrant request by Andy Mabbett:

Overview
To attend the "QR World Expo" exhibition in London (from Birmingham)

Budget
£118.70 (£98.70 train fare; £20 per diem; per expenses policy) Note: off-peak train travel would not get me to the venue on time.

To his credit, Michael Peel is querying his conflict of interest:

Hi Andy, many thanks for submitting this microgrant request. I understand that there is a potential conflict of interest here, since you offer to do contract work on QRpedia related projects, which means that you may (directly or indirectly) receive a commercial benefit from this microgrant. Would you be able to explain how this COI would be addressed here, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:47 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).
WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if they were apprised of this.
Exactly. Did WMUK fund Bamkin and/or Cummings initial trips to Gibraltar? Would Bamkin have been able to get meetings with government officials if he was not a Trustee of WMUK (and former Chair)? Is WMUK paying for the "training sessions" in Gibraltar?

I believe it has already been established that WMUK have not paid out any money for anything to do with Gibraltar. The official position is that there has been a little management time and a few leaflets that are freely available to any organisation.

I don't see that there is much of an issue with WMUK being involved in Gibraltar (not that they are particularly involved). However, what seems to have happened is that they have had their name used for someone else's advantage, and unfortunately, because of their close relationship, rather than shouting up, they have made a few uncomfortable squirms and sort of co-operated. I'm not sure that anyone at WMUK is overly happy about this, but they have been influenced by their close relationship into not pushing back appropriately to some activities which are bound to reflect badly on WMUK, even if they have not really been that involved.

It's worth remembering that it was only a few weeks ago that WMUK was getting in a lather about business cards. Perhaps there should have been an alarm bell ringing that Wikipedians even knew what a business card might be for other than for a game of Top Trumps. WMUK are giving a load of arbitrary people the ability to pass themselves off as somehow being official Wikipedians.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:06 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Exactly. Did WMUK fund Bamkin and/or Cummings initial trips to Gibraltar? Would Bamkin have been able to get meetings with government officials if he was not a Trustee of WMUK (and former Chair)? Is WMUK paying for the "training sessions" in Gibraltar?

Look who else will be travelling to Gibraltar soon – none other than Prioryman.

Visiting Gib

I'm going to be visiting Gib on 6-7 October with camera and notebook in hand. :-) If anyone would like to meet up for a chat please do let me know - I've worked on and off on History of Gibraltar, most of which I wrote, and am aiming to get it finished soon and hopefully get it up to GA or FA standard. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:23 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:I believe it has already been established that WMUK have not paid out any money for anything to do with Gibraltar. The official position is that there has been a little management time and a few leaflets that are freely available to any organisation.

I think I will wait until some specific questions have been asked and answered before deciding what has been established.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:35 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Another angle we have not explored yet is Gibraltar's disputed status. Two links about the earlier career of the Minister who negotiated the deal http://www.panorama.gi/archive/011119/updates.htm http://vox.gi/Profile/2054-Neil_Costa_Profile.html, about his anti-Spanish activism. “People, Gibraltar, were being castigated by Spain and I believed that when qualified I could offer legal professional help to fight injustice,” he says. “And I still see that as my role – a duty almost.”

Also the user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juanmatorres75 of the only Gibraltar editor who does not seem to be involved in the project. I suspect he may be among those who does not have "Gibraltar’s best interest at heart", would that explain his absence?

As it happens, Juan has just piped up on Jimbo's talk page.

I'm having a lot of trouble to edit on page "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and now I begin to understand why.Juanmatorres75 22:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:52 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:I believe it has already been established that WMUK have not paid out any money for anything to do with Gibraltar. The official position is that there has been a little management time and a few leaflets that are freely available to any organisation.
I think I will wait until some specific questions have been asked and answered before deciding what has been established.

Well, having just seen that Prioryman is getting to go to Gibraltar, I am sure that he is being funded from somewhere. I can't believe that the CEO of WMUK would say that they had paid out no money for the project if ChisO is getting a macro-grant for travel, so presumably he is getting subsidised by Roger and the project (doubt he is going on his own dime). Makes his contribution on Jimbo's page especially dubious. I hope someone puts the plain question on Jimbo's talk page: "Are you an appropriate person to suggest that there is no conflict of interest when you are about to travel to Gibraltar yourself?" I feel that Prioryman might just have gone one step too far.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:16 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).
WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if these volunteers were apprised of this.

You have captured the essence of the corruption in very few words (Many volunteers have in fact been motivated to do very low priority work by someone else's not clearly disclosed pursuit of profit. There are lots of big picture problems this will usefully illustrate with Wikipedia's editorial model).

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:19 am

Perhaps not the most convenient time for the publicity to continue:

"...says Roger Bamkin of Wikimedia, the charity that owns the online encyclopaedia."

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:24 am

Silent Editor wrote:Perhaps not the most convenient time for the publicity to continue:
"...says Roger Bamkin of Wikimedia, the charity that owns the online encyclopaedia."

The malicious little shit in me is chortling. They're corrupt. Flagrantly corrupt. (I've got to assume this BBC fluff piece was reported days or weeks ago. If he actually gave this interview today, well, the stupidity... it would be special. Very special).

"Gibraltarpedia" organisers want their QR codes to communicate with the user's phone to determine its set-up language, so a Brazilian tourist can be taken to a page in Portuguese, a Turk to one in Turkish and so on, says Roger Bamkin of Wikimedia, the charity that owns the online encyclopaedia.

"By scanning QR codes around them, tourists will be to able to find out about the place they are visiting in their own language, with the description written by a volunteer speaking that language," he says.

Volunteers have been producing up to 20 articles a day in various languages, and Mr Bamkin has been in Gibraltar this week seeking more people to contribute photos, maps and information on the territory's history.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:32 am

Silent Editor wrote:Perhaps not the most convenient time for the publicity to continue:
"...says Roger Bamkin of Wikimedia, the charity that owns the online encyclopaedia."

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:03 am

DanMurphy wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).
WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if these volunteers were apprised of this.
You have captured the essence of the corruption in very few words (Many volunteers have in fact been motivated to do very low priority work by someone else's not clearly disclosed pursuit of profit. There are lots of big picture problems this will usefully illustrate with Wikipedia's editorial model).

From Roger Bamkin’s LinkedIn profile:

Roger Bamkin's Experience
Consultant
Victuallers Ltd
May 2012 – Present (5 months)
I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:05 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:First Fae, now this ... I must say, WMUK is the gift that keeps on giving.

Wasn't there an earlier attempt at forming a UK chapter that failed? Weren't there some sketchy characters involved in that too?

If you consider David Gerard and his then wives, Alison Wheeler and some mysterious person who may or may not have been FT2 sketchy characters, then, yes.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:06 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:Wasn't there an earlier attempt at forming a UK chapter that failed? Weren't there some sketchy characters involved in that too?

It will be covered in the book. Involved: The Glory That Is David Gerard, his girlfriend, that stalwart Deep Lover Of Dogs FT2, and Alison Wheeler (you know, the nice lady
who was caught running two admin sockpuppets, using one of them to vote against the deletion of her vanity article) working together with Wiki-Luv, to run it into the ground.

As you can see, the names have changed, the corruption and incompetence have not.

(Damn, this is the hottest thread WPocracy has ever seen. 60+ people are reading it right now. And Ottava is still claiming this forum is a "failure".)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:23 am

Tippi Hadron wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:It's an interesting one. Wikipedia is anyone's to edit. Therefore, supposedly anyone can set up projects around Wikipedia, though normally they are done in the guise of a Wikipedian Project. However, here we have people apparently saying "I am a special kind of Wikipedian, I have control and influence because I am part of the management." and using that to make money. It is not the making money that is really a problem (aside from to Jimbo), it is the use of a charity position to boost one's CV and chance of gaining work. GLAM and Monmounthopedia seemed like a good way to galvanise volunteers, but now we start to see that they are a good way to get your mates earning out of Wikipedia (while leaving others to slave over content).
WMUK needs to come out and say exactly who got paid for what, if the Volunteer team was being directed by someone making money off them, and if these volunteers were apprised of this.
You have captured the essence of the corruption in very few words (Many volunteers have in fact been motivated to do very low priority work by someone else's not clearly disclosed pursuit of profit. There are lots of big picture problems this will usefully illustrate with Wikipedia's editorial model).
From Roger Bamkin’s LinkedIn profile:
Roger Bamkin's Experience
Consultant
Victuallers Ltd
May 2012 – Present (5 months)
I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment.

Is "paybeack" one of those fiddly British spellings? I wouldn't have thought so.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:37 am

DanMurphy wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote: From Roger Bamkin’s LinkedIn profile:
Roger Bamkin's Experience
Consultant
Victuallers Ltd
May 2012 – Present (5 months)
I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment.
Is "paybeack" one of those fiddly British spellings? I wouldn't have thought so.

You wouldn't have been wrong.

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:08 am

Well, it may not be a 'WMUK project', but going back the the Gibraltar Chronicle report 20July, it's pretty easy to see why people might have got that impression...

...made the first contact with Wikimedia UK to start the ball rolling.

...Wikimedia UK director, Roger Bamkin explained...

...Ashley van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK said: “Wikimedia UK is looking forward to supporting the project..."

I do note that the then Chair didn't say "Wikimedia UK is looking forward to supporting the project by providing £10 worth of leaflets".

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:21 am

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.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:31 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... kimedia_UK

I find it helps if you read ChrisO/Prioryman's text in the voice of Dr Sheldon Cooper from "The Big Bang Theory".

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:33 am

DanMurphy wrote: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.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:34 am

DanMurphy wrote: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.

https://twitter.com/qrpedia
https://twitter.com/GibraltarpediA

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:37 am

DanMurphy wrote: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.

The code is like a barcode, but QRpedia links the code to wikipedia. It is the subject of a proposed agreement between the creators and WMUK which is in the works.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:56 am

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.