Gibraltarpedia - rock solid

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:51 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Should I know who User:ACP2011 (T-H-L) is?

Her persona is that of a mother from Chicago.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:45 am

tarantino wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Should I know who User:ACP2011 (T-H-L) is?
Her persona is that of a mother from Chicago.

Or a sock of Blofeld. Take yer choice.

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:03 am

EricBarbour wrote:
tarantino wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Should I know who User:ACP2011 (T-H-L) is?
Her persona is that of a mother from Chicago.
Or a sock of Blofeld. Take yer choice.

Oh, now. Blofeld was just being protective. He's hit her talk page 26 times. Surely that'd be too neurotic even for the good doctor, to talk to himself that much. I would bet, while being too lazy to check, that somehow, somewhere, he got the idea that her username being redlinked was helping to chase her away and decided to fix everything.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:24 am

Sweet Revenge wrote:Oh, now. Blofeld was just being protective. He's hit her talk page 26 times. Surely that'd be too neurotic even for the good doctor, to talk to himself that much. I would bet, while being too lazy to check, that somehow, somewhere, he got the idea that her username being redlinked was helping to chase her away and decided to fix everything.

Forgive my doubts, but why would a "mother from Chicago" be obsessed with Hans Goerth (T-H-L), and various British pilots Goerth shot down during WWI?

"She" is a sock of one of the WMUK people. Since many of them were interested in military history, you could almost take your choice.

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:51 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Sweet Revenge wrote:Oh, now. Blofeld was just being protective. He's hit her talk page 26 times. Surely that'd be too neurotic even for the good doctor, to talk to himself that much. I would bet, while being too lazy to check, that somehow, somewhere, he got the idea that her username being redlinked was helping to chase her away and decided to fix everything.
Forgive my doubts, but why would a "mother from Chicago" be obsessed with Hans Goerth (T-H-L), and various British pilots Goerth shot down during WWI?

"She" is a sock of one of the WMUK people. Since many of them were interested in military history, you could almost take your choice.

OK, there's something weird there, it's true. What's up with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =478964335? Practicing unblock requests in the sandbox four days after her account was created and her with a clean block log. This might be an explanation here, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =478987082. Mothers from anywhere can be interested in German flyers. I just read a biography of an (almost) mother from Chicago who spent three years in the army in WW2 and another three in the CIA in the 50s. This one's early fumbles wth references seem genuine.

(edit) Have you been able to find where Seren discovered that she was a mom from Chicago? I see some stuff in the history of her talk page where she talks about her kids.

(edit) Come on, look how she signs her early edit summaries. Who would think to do that to authenticate a sock? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... et=ACP2011

(edit) Says she went to high school in Connecticut: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =481718379

(edit) I really think she's legit. She got into Monmouth-o-pedia through DYK and did so well that they recruited her into Gibbet-o-pedia: here. Plenty of mothers into military history.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:25 am

Sweet Revenge wrote:(edit) Come on, look how she signs her early edit summaries. Who would think to do that to authenticate a sock? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... et=ACP2011

Deeply obsessed people often do this. Some editors have custom bots that produce edit summaries automatically. (News flash)

(edit) I really think she's legit. She got into Monmouth-o-pedia through DYK and did so well that they recruited her into Gibbet-o-pedia: here. Plenty of mothers into military history.

Yeah, okay, whatever. I continue to assert that this is a sock account, of whomever.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:50 am

Silent Editor wrote:The WMUK Board minutes 19 Sep 12:
Fæ explained his views of the need to improve our Conflict of Interest and Declaration of Interest policies. Implementing the letter of Charity Commission guidelines is no longer sufficient.

I find it hard to reconcile Fæ's views here with his position of not declaring that he doesn't have any COI as it is "is neither a requirement by the Charity Commission [n]or best practice for charities".

It's not that hard.

1) We have established Fae is not as bright as he likes to think he is, and he has declared he changes his mind on a whim.
2) They never understood what they were getting into when they signed up to being a charity.
3) They made the mistake of believing that you could reconcile Wikipedia policies with rational thought and the realities of the non-virtual world.

However, the fundamental position of the Charity Commission is that you only take decisions in the best interests of the charity, nothing else is to be taken into account. So I'd agree that it should not be that hard to understand where the difficulty lies.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:25 am

Vigilant wrote:Even after all this shit.
Even after the WMF took their fundraising.
Even after multiple resignations being forced.
Even after getting a seneschal forced on them by WMF.

They still keep on doing the "pay me" shuffle for Gibraltar.

Makes you wonder what other skeevy dealios they've signed with tourist boards that have the potential to feather their pockets.
. . . .

Works for me. This is as good a way for The Day to get Hastened as any.

Yes! Yeeesss! Feel the avarice, the arrogance, and

the utter lack of self-awareness welling inside you!

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:47 am

Silent Editor wrote:The WMUK Board minutes 19 Sep 12:
Fæ explained his views of the need to improve our Conflict of Interest and Declaration of Interest policies. Implementing the letter of Charity Commission guidelines is no longer sufficient.

I find it hard to reconcile Fæ's views here with his position of not declaring that he doesn't have any COI as it is "is neither a requirement by the Charity Commission [n]or best practice for charities".

What if I told you Fae is a serial hypocrite? Would that make it easier to reconcile what you (brilliantly) found here?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:56 am

Well his two-faced stance on privacy and open-ness has been pretty clear for awhile. His petulant whining against the WMUK mailing list being open was a good indicator.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:01 am

Anroth wrote:Well his two-faced stance on privacy and open-ness has been pretty clear for awhile. His petulant whining against the WMUK mailing list being open was a good indicator.

Would that be the "We need to be open unless it's about MMMMEEEEEEE!!!!!" thing?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:40 am

dogbiscuit wrote:
Anroth wrote:Well his two-faced stance on privacy and open-ness has been pretty clear for awhile. His petulant whining against the WMUK mailing list being open was a good indicator.
Would that be the "We need to be open unless it's about MMMMEEEEEEE!!!!!" thing?

Bingo.

Retrospect · Unread post by **Retrospect** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:31 pm

EricBarbour wrote:"She" is a sock of one of the WMUK people. Since many of them were interested in military history, you could almost take your choice.

Well, that's bloody helpful! Isn't our own Dr. Kohs an expert on military history?

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:58 pm

Any Portuguese speakers about? I'm not quite sure what this is meant to be. It appears to a series of questions related to press reports involving Wikipedia, but the questions and responses have taken the same facile direction as most of the media reports (i.e., this is paid editing). Jay Walsh is quoted as saying

It's important to make a clear distinction between Roger Bamkin's volunteer roles with the organization known as Wikimedia UK (which is the volunteer run chapter based in the UK that conducts outreach programs to support the Wikimedia projects). Roger was at one point chair of the board of trustees for Wikimedia UK, and until recently he was a trustee of Wikimedia UK. Those titles afforded him no special privileges or favors as a Wikipedian editor, which he also is. These roles and positions are relatively unrelated.

I have no doubt that the inevitable confusion and conflation of Bamkin's roles as WMUK Chair/Trustee, WP admin, WP editor, and paid consultant were what enabled this mess in the first place.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:04 pm

Moonage Daydream wrote:Any Portuguese speakers about? I'm not quite sure what this is meant to be. It appears to a series of questions related to press reports involving Wikipedia, but the questions and responses have taken the same facile direction as most of the media reports (i.e., this is paid editing). Jay Walsh is quoted as saying
It's important to make a clear distinction between Roger Bamkin's volunteer roles with the organization known as Wikimedia UK (which is the volunteer run chapter based in the UK that conducts outreach programs to support the Wikimedia projects). Roger was at one point chair of the board of trustees for Wikimedia UK, and until recently he was a trustee of Wikimedia UK. Those titles afforded him no special privileges or favors as a Wikipedian editor, which he also is. These roles and positions are relatively unrelated.
I have no doubt that the inevitable confusion and conflation of Bamkin's roles as WMUK Chair/Trustee, WP admin, WP editor, and paid consultant were what enabled this mess in the first place.

These are translations of the questions:
1. Does the Roger Bamkin case somehow tarnish the image of Wikipedia?
2. How does Wikipedia handle conflicts of interest?
3. Are there any norms governing ethical issues for Wikipedia contributors?
4. How should limits for conflicts of interest be defined?
5. In public, Wikimedia has denied that there has been any conflict of interest in Bamkin's involvement in the project in Gibraltar. But after the scandal became public, he resigned. Does this not foster further speculation?
6. What was Bamkin able to do for any article by virtue of his position that any other contributor couldn't have done?

The Portuguese answer to question 2 says that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and that it is the result that is judged, according to notability and quality criteria, rather than the circumstances in which an article was created.

The Portuguese answer to question 6 says that he had no special privileges beyond his experience as an editor and his understanding of Wikipedia criteria, just like anyone in any other field benefits from expertise.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:28 pm

Well, Gibraltar F.C. (T-H-L) is in prep area 2.

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:43 pm

thekohser wrote:
Silent Editor wrote:The WMUK Board minutes 19 Sep 12:
Fæ explained his views of the need to improve our Conflict of Interest and Declaration of Interest policies. Implementing the letter of Charity Commission guidelines is no longer sufficient.

I find it hard to reconcile Fæ's views here with his position of not declaring that he doesn't have any COI as it is "is neither a requirement by the Charity Commission [n]or best practice for charities".
What if I told you Fae is a serial hypocrite? Would that make it easier to reconcile what you (brilliantly) found here?

It turns out Fæ does have an interest to declare, after all.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:58 pm

EricBarbour wrote:"She" is a sock of one of the WMUK people. Since many of them were interested in military history, you could almost take your choice.

I've confirmed through publicly available information that she really is from the Chicago area.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:59 pm

WMUK blog post:

http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a- ... -uk-board/

A message from the Wikimedia UK Board

Wikimedia UK’s Board of Trustees met on Tuesday 8 October to discuss recent events, review strategy and evaluate where we want to be in the future. Following the meeting, and subsequent discussions, the Board wishes to make the following statement:

“It has been almost a year since Wikimedia UK achieved charitable status. This is a sensible checkpoint to use to assess the progress we’ve made in the last year as a Board, with our community and our staff.

“We have had a difficult few months which have resulted in negative attention. Some of the coverage has been inaccurate, and much of it has been ill-informed, but we know our community deserves better. Collectively, we have made mistakes. Here and now, we apologise for these mistakes.

“We are determined to learn from our mistakes. We are equally determined to heal the wounds that recent events have opened.

“We welcome the independent review of our governance that we will be undertaking jointly with the Wikimedia Foundation. By looking closely at our governance policies and procedures, and how those have been acted on, we expect the review to have clear recommendations which will help us follow best practice in every area of governance. We are certain that the review will lead to our charity and our movement being in a much stronger position. The results of this review will, of course, be made publicly available and we reaffirm our commitment to transparency and openness.

“Bearing all of this in mind, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the many excellent achievements of our community and our staff during the same period. We have led the way in our relationships with GLAM institutions. Monmouthpedia was voted the year’s coolest Wikimedia project at Wikimania. Our Wikimedian in Residence programme continues to bring benefits to our movement. Our ground-breaking EduWiki conference highlighted the important role that Wikimedia projects can have in higher education. We are continuing to work hard to grow our volunteer and editing communities, particularly within under-represented groups. We have even taken over the city of Coventry for a day.

“These efforts are continuing every day. Take a look at just some of the activities we have planned for the month of October:

We are celebrating the achievements of women in science and technology on Ada Lovelace Day (in partnership with the Royal Society) and hosting an editathon to encourage more women to edit

We are working with Parkinson’s UK to teach their volunteers and staff to edit Wikipedia, helping to improve the encyclopaedia on a critical topic for many people

We will deliver a workshop at the British Library for groups that have received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council

We are teaming up with The Equiano Centre at University College, London, to host an event for Black History Month, improving coverage on Wikipedia and encouraging the participation of new editors.

“That these events are happening at all is a result of the hard work, determination and motivation of our excellent volunteers, our dedicated and committed staff and our generous donors and supporters.

“This has been a difficult few weeks for us. We must learn from it, and we must not let it prevent us delivering our mission. We will continue to work hard for our community and we will continue working to make the sum total of human knowledge available to everyone, everywhere, for free.”

Tags: Board, Wikimedia UK
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 13th, 2012 at 7:40 pm and is filed under Board. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “A message from the Wikimedia UK Board”

Andrew Turvey says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Thanks for this statement. There are lots of people in Wikimedia UK who have put a lot of effort into the chapter and have been very frustrated – angry even – at recent events and the damage it appears to have done. It means a lot that the board is willing to acknowledge that mistakes have been made and understand that damage has been caused and it is most appreciated.

I’m glad you also “reaffirm [your] commitment to transparency and openness”. In that spirit will you now publish the terms of reference of the review?

Ongoing discussions on the mailing list.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:55 pm

Article in The Olive Press, "Spain's No. 1 English daily news website"

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/ ... overnment/

Wikipedia accepts paid promotions from Gibraltar government

A ROW has broken out over paid promotions of the Rock after a board member of a firm linked to Wikipedia was hired to promote Gibraltar on the site.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:43 pm

Yes, there will be no investigation at all according to Wikimedia UK trustee John Byrne.

"was appointing an independent investigator to inquire into WMUK's governance standards and processes.[44]" - No, the review is a joint WMF/WMUK commission. "investigator" is the wrong word, not used by the parties: "expert consulant" would be better.

Mr. Byrne also prefers primary sources over news reports. As he says:

Generally references should include the actual statements from the parties (Arbcom, WMF, WMUK) instead of just relying on highly imprecise reporting by the likes of Fox News.

This is once again the phenomenon of Wikipedia insiders taking issue with news sources when they report on their own activities, while insisting on the use of news sources over "primary" sources in the case of everyone else.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:19 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Yes, there will be no investigation at all according to Wikimedia UK trustee John Byrne.

"was appointing an independent investigator to inquire into WMUK's governance standards and processes.[44]" - No, the review is a joint WMF/WMUK commission. "investigator" is the wrong word, not used by the parties: "expert consulant" would be better.
Mr. Byrne also prefers primary sources over news reports. As he says:

Generally references should include the actual statements from the parties (Arbcom, WMF, WMUK) instead of just relying on highly imprecise reporting by the likes of Fox News.
This is once again the phenomenon of Wikipedia insiders taking issue with news sources when they report on their own activities, while insisting on the use of news sources over "primary" sources in the case of everyone else.

I know it's been said over and over, but you really can't make this shit up. The WMF fundraising season should be interesting, especially after the US elections are wrapped up.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:59 pm

SB_Johnny wrote: I know it's been said over and over, but you really can't make this shit up. The WMF fundraising season should be interesting, especially after the US elections are wrapped up.

They are gonna love the new donation graphics
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/ ... 30copy.png

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:10 pm

Just brilliant.
Mr Byrne wants a correction about the Fae case:

*"... The case resulted in him being barred from contributing to the English Wikipedia for an indefinite period.[33][34]" - No, it was 6 months.

And then:

DanMurphy wrote: Mr. Byrne also prefers primary sources over news reports. As he says:

Generally references should include the actual statements from the parties (Arbcom, WMF, WMUK) instead of just relying on highly imprecise reporting by the likes of Fox News.
This is once again the phenomenon of Wikipedia insiders taking issue with news sources when they report on their own activities, while insisting on the use of news sources over "primary" sources in the case of everyone else.

Well, this is primary source Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Final decision:

For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Strangely enough, secondary sources like The Daily Telegraph and Fox News understands this to mean that Fæ is .......indefinitely banned.
But Mr Byrne knows better!
Fæ was just banned for...6 months!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:22 pm

The Adversary wrote:Just brilliant.
Mr Byrne wants a correction about the Fae case:
*"... The case resulted in him being barred from contributing to the English Wikipedia for an indefinite period.[33][34]" - No, it was 6 months.
And then:
DanMurphy wrote: Mr. Byrne also prefers primary sources over news reports. As he says:

Generally references should include the actual statements from the parties (Arbcom, WMF, WMUK) instead of just relying on highly imprecise reporting by the likes of Fox News.
This is once again the phenomenon of Wikipedia insiders taking issue with news sources when they report on their own activities, while insisting on the use of news sources over "primary" sources in the case of everyone else.
Well, this is primary source Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Final decision:
For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Strangely enough, secondary sources like The Daily Telegraph and Fox News understand this to mean that Fæ is .......indefinitely banned.
But Mr Byrne knows better!
Fæ was just banned for...6 months!

Good catch (and I'd forgotten). Mr. Van Haeften's userpage says:

"This editor has been banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee."

And his block log says:

"blocked Fae with an expiry time of indefinite."

The meaning of words and phrases at Wikipedia is complex terrain.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:44 am

Johnbod's "No, it [Fae's ban] was 6 months" statement isn't correct. Fae may appeal after six months. The ban doesn't automagically expire after six months. Even so, Fae's ability to appeal after six months should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The telegraph.co.uk article cited by the Wikipedia article says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9439046/Chairman-of-Wikipedia-charity-banned-after-pornography-row.html

Mr van Haeften can appeal against the ban after six months and is still able to contribute to non-English versions of Wikipedia.

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:15 am

lilburne wrote:They are gonna love the new donation graphics
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/ ... 30copy.png

Win! :D

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:02 am

Guys and gals, say hello nicely to Wikimedia UK trustee John Byrne.

He is lurking here

Hmm, it sounds as if he is copying the words of a banned user; Michaeldsuarez; a complete co-inky-dinky, I´m sure

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:07 am

The Adversary wrote:Guys and gals, say hello nicely to Wikimedia UK trustee John Byrne.

He is lurking here

Then maybe he could have a look at WP:REDACT (T-H-L) while he's lurking, for goodness' sakes.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:27 am

Sweet Revenge wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Guys and gals, say hello nicely to Wikimedia UK trustee John Byrne.

He is lurking here
Then maybe he could have a look at WP:REDACT (T-H-L) while he's lurking, for goodness' sakes.

I just noticed that there is a stray signature in this page that has been there for nearly six years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... formatting

It does not seem to be a demonstration on signing talk page posts.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:03 am

Gibraltar DYK hooks were resumed a few days ago, after a "consensus" of about a dozen people arrived at this ruling, which says that Gibraltar hooks are limited to one a day, but are otherwise fine. Even that ruling has not been kept to, since according to Wikipedia:Recent_additions (T-H-L) they have had

– two Gibraltar hooks yesterday, i.e. on 17 October,
– two on 15 October,
– one on 13 October,
– one on 12 October

The hooks were resumed after this discussion. Prioryman (T-C-L) apparently began the discussion the day after he returned from a meeting in Gibraltar. Another discussion begun at WT:DYK a couple of days ago, "How do we stop the Gibraltar DYKs?", has so far not yielded a result.

So there have been 6 DYK hooks in the last six days, and at the time of writing they have another 14 lined up here. At this rate, Wikipedia will have had 20 Gibraltar DYK hooks in October; this after the Telegraph quoted Jimmy Wales as saying that 17 Gibraltar hooks in August were "absurd".

In fact, after all the media hubbub, Wikipedia now has more Gibraltar DYK hooks than ever, all in line with the marketing philosophy outlined in the Wikimedia UK presentation about "Improving a city's Google position on the web", complete with its explanation of the use of the Wikipedia main page at time code 12.22.
It seems to be remarkably easy for a small number of individuals to hijack the Wikipedia main page for their own purposes.

Also posted to Jimmy Wales' talk page.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:40 am

Its looking ridiculous now. Given the self-contained regular DYK crowd, not sure what can be done about it. You could try opening an RFC to bring in outside opinion, and propose a halt to all Gib-hooks until its completed? At this point, Priory is either just a patsy for someone else (who is recieving money) or he is a willing accomplice and being slipped something on the side.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:08 am

Anroth wrote:At this point, Priory is either just a patsy for someone else (who is recieving money) or he is a willing accomplice and being slipped something on the side.

My impression is that Prioryman is a typical Wikipedian extremist, convinced of his own righteousness to the extend that he simply does not see what he is doing. He gets the bit between his teeth and ploughs on. All you need to do to spur him on is suggest he is working against evil outside influences and he will do anything, whether it is sensible or not. I very much doubt he needs paying to act as he does, and those who use him know it full well.

It is still amazing that having repeatedly exhausted the patience of various Wikipedians in his various guises, he still manages to stay in place as a high-profile nuisance.

If someone stepped back and looked at his interactions with Wikipedia as a proxy for WMUK trustees you have a great example of why COI policies look rather stupid when you have lackies like Prioryman working on your behalf to provide isolation from a personal charge of conflict. His interaction on the Fae case was bizarre in the face of the "let's do this properly" pronouncements of ArbCom, and here he is determinedly subverting a Wikipedia process for his mates' interests. I am sure there are more really clear examples of how individuals can subvert Wikipedia easily. What I struggle to understand is what his magic cloak is - within WMUK fine, but within Wikipedia is it simply that he stridently blames all wrongdoing on WR/Wikipediocracy so people take their brains out and stop reading what he actually writes?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:13 am

Meh it might be worth trying to push through that WMUK (as an entity) has a COI with regards to Gib, and thus so do all members. Might be worth a punt at COIN.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:24 pm

Gigs (T-C-L) has pointed out on Jimbo's talk page that Monmouthpedia won an actual business award.

It was the winner of "Excellence in Marketing".

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:44 pm

And here (webcitation archive) Roger tweeted:

about a year since @tedxbristol:- that gave birth to @MonmouthpediA and now @GibraltarpediA - not bad for a talk aimed at Bristol :-)

Proof – if proof were needed – that the TEDx Bristol presentation outlines the business model for Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:49 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Gigs (T-C-L) has pointed out on Jimbo's talk page that Monmouthpedia won an actual business award.

It was the winner of "Excellence in Marketing".

Somebody needs to design a new barnstar and give it out liberally.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:55 pm

HRIP7 wrote:And here (webcitation archive) Roger tweeted:

about a year since @tedxbristol:- that gave birth to @MonmouthpediA and now @GibraltarpediA - not bad for a talk aimed at Bristol :-)
Proof – if proof were needed – that the TEDx Bristol presentation outlines the business model for Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia.

The "excellence in marketing" award given to the Monmouthpedia promotional (and paid) Wikipedia project was sponsored by a property developer called "Severn Quay." Just found the following from July 2012 on their website:Is Chepstow the next Wikipedia town?

Officials hope to recreate the success of “Monmouthpedia” by installing special bar codes at prominent locations. The project, conceived by Wikipedia editor John Cummings, offers comprehensive coverage of an entire town by placing QR codes on the sides of buildings and at the entrance to other attractions.

Visitors with smartphones can then scan the codes and instantly access up-to-date Wikipedia entries about all aspects of local life. More than 1,000 were placed in Monmouth in May which, according to the South Wales Argus, put the town “on the global map”. Now Monmouthshire County Council hopes to roll-out the same technology in Chepstow in a bid to showcase the castle, riverside, Wales Coast Path, and other local sights.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting last week, the council's chief officer for regeneration and culture, Kellie Beirne, said: “We are creating a buzz really that has global prominence.” Paul Matthews, the council’s chief executive, said the financial return from the project was “exponential”. Advertising value for Monmouth alone has been estimated at £2.12million. The president of Chepstow Chamber of Commerce, Melanie Phillips, said: “I think it would give a better visitor experience, an awful lot of information and bring tourism here into the 21st century.”

Chepstow property, together with new developments in Chepstow and new developments in Monmouthshire, will also benefit. A spokesman for Severn Quay, a luxury development of riverside properties in Chepstow, added: “We look forward to hearing more about what sounds like a very, very exciting project.”

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:05 pm

http://www.examiner.com/article/gibralt ... man-s-body

Would that pass notability guidelines? I'm torn between BLP issues and getting a DYK credit. Or credits, let's put Gibraltar, MI on the map, in the right, er, wrong, way!

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:09 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:And here (webcitation archive) Roger tweeted:

about a year since @tedxbristol:- that gave birth to @MonmouthpediA and now @GibraltarpediA - not bad for a talk aimed at Bristol :-)
Proof – if proof were needed – that the TEDx Bristol presentation outlines the business model for Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia.
The "excellence in marketing" award given to the Monmouthpedia promotional (and paid) Wikipedia project was sponsored by a property developer called "Severn Quay." Just found the following from July 2012 on their website:Is Chepstow the next Wikipedia town?

Officials hope to recreate the success of “Monmouthpedia” by installing special bar codes at prominent locations. The project, conceived by Wikipedia editor John Cummings, offers comprehensive coverage of an entire town by placing QR codes on the sides of buildings and at the entrance to other attractions.

Visitors with smartphones can then scan the codes and instantly access up-to-date Wikipedia entries about all aspects of local life. More than 1,000 were placed in Monmouth in May which, according to the South Wales Argus, put the town “on the global map”. Now Monmouthshire County Council hopes to roll-out the same technology in Chepstow in a bid to showcase the castle, riverside, Wales Coast Path, and other local sights.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting last week, the council's chief officer for regeneration and culture, Kellie Beirne, said: “We are creating a buzz really that has global prominence.” Paul Matthews, the council’s chief executive, said the financial return from the project was “exponential”. Advertising value for Monmouth alone has been estimated at £2.12million. The president of Chepstow Chamber of Commerce, Melanie Phillips, said: “I think it would give a better visitor experience, an awful lot of information and bring tourism here into the 21st century.”

Chepstow property, together with new developments in Chepstow and new developments in Monmouthshire, will also benefit. A spokesman for Severn Quay, a luxury development of riverside properties in Chepstow, added: “We look forward to hearing more about what sounds like a very, very exciting project.”

It seems there is no end to this rabbit hole.

Here, just in case, is a webcite archive for that page.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:54 pm

The issue of officially endorsed COI editing through GLAM goes further than just Gibraltar. I have reviewed some of the articles contributed by the British Museum and they are generally of excellent quality. Clearly we can't just throw away everything that was created by people with a conflict of interest, it's some of our best work. I think what we need to do is make sure our COI policy differentiates between editing with a conflict of interest, and editing to further an outside interest. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily bad, but furthering interests outside Wikipedia is. Our current COI policy is so muddled on this point that it's really contributing to the problem. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Does this person really understand what a conflict of interest is? Didn't this person just go for RfA?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:58 pm

Interesting paper by Roger on geotagging, wiki towns, and Wikipedia in general; apparently presented a few days ago at the Oxford Internet Institute and at De Monfort University in Leicester.

In only eleven years Wikipedia has grown from being the education resource that dare not speak its name to the universal arbiter of arguments in both pubs and staff rooms. This year has also seen the first County Council partner with Wikimedia to create the world's first Wikipedia Town: Monmouth. In one place we can see the real world matched up with its virtual counterpart, allowing people to play with augmented reality throughout an entire town. What new business models can emerge from this creation? Can British institution adapt to new ways of obtaining and sharing information? Roger Bamkin discusses examples of how Wikipedia projects now allow all of us to define "received wisdom."

(Somebody ought to tell him that Myanmar isn't in Africa.)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:04 pm

The small African country of Myanmar has little internet access but it has more geotagged articles per 100,000 internet users than most countries. This is thought to be due to Wikipedians who do not live there editing articles about that country.

If I were an educator, I'd suggest Mr. Bamkin should consider starting his over. The awfulness of the prose and the thinking of the author mounts with each new sentence.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:45 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Interesting paper by Roger on geotagging, wiki towns, and Wikipedia in general; apparently presented a few days ago at the Oxford Internet Institute and at De Monfort University in Leicester.

In only eleven years Wikipedia has grown from being the education resource that dare not speak its name to the universal arbiter of arguments in both pubs and staff rooms. This year has also seen the first County Council partner with Wikimedia to create the world's first Wikipedia Town: Monmouth. In one place we can see the real world matched up with its virtual counterpart, allowing people to play with augmented reality throughout an entire town. What new business models can emerge from this creation? Can British institution adapt to new ways of obtaining and sharing information? Roger Bamkin discusses examples of how Wikipedia projects now allow all of us to define "received wisdom."
(Somebody ought to tell him that Myanmar isn't in Africa.)

And isn't small. Ranked 40th by area and 24th by population by a certain online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's bigger than France but doesn't look so on those map projections so popular in Europe.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:46 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:http://www.examiner.com/article/gibralt ... man-s-body

Would that pass notability guidelines? I'm torn between BLP issues and getting a DYK credit. Or credits, let's put Gibraltar, MI on the map, in the right, er, wrong, way!

Eh, please, no.

But if you go back to the El Pais article about Gilbraltarpedia, posters there had a lot of suggestions about "interesting" DYKs!

I think the most needed DYKs about Gibraltar would be about its "tax-paradise"-status. And how this status has attracted some rather shady people. There will be a lot of WP:RS which voice criticism against "tax-paradises", why not use those?

This is an issue which is damn more important that some hotel, or some murderer.
Any takers?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:41 am

As I recall Examiner is considered not a reliable source every time it comes up at RSN anyway.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:53 pm

A Wikipedia editor has uncovered the Monmouth-Wikimedia UK memorandum of understanding on Roger Bamkin's paid editing project, "Monmouthpedia" (the model/forerunner for the Gibraltarpedia paid editing project) (You may remember that Wikimedia UK trustees, most notably John Byrne, have struggled mightily to confirm such a document exists, despite a video being uploaded of the signing ceremony).

Approval signatories
MCC:
Mike Booth - General Manager of Shire Hall and Steering Group member
WMUK:
Ashley Van Haeften - Wikimedia UK Chairman
Roger Bamkin - Wikimedia UK Trustee and Steering Group representative

The MOU is obscure (perhaps deliberately so). Most interesting is that Bamkin, who was getting paid for this project (not disclosed in the document) was signing as a Wiki UK trustee alongside the Wiki UK chairman (that is, the chairman could not have been ignorant that Bamkin was being presented as a charity trustee while conducting his private, for-profit business).

The Highlights from the Monmouthshire cabinet meeting on all this are more clear as to the project's purpose (Of particular note, is that the local government was told that "Work carried out by WikimediA UK shows that the advertising value equivalent of the press and comms generated is in the region of £2.12m"; that would have been Mr. Bamkin, wearing his multiple hats, telling them that):

On 19th May, the MonmouthpediA project held a celebration of success day to mark the achievements to date:
On launch day there were 252 articles published in 36 countries about the project (Work carried out by WikimediA UK shows that the advertising value equivalent of the press and comms generated is in the region of £2.12m), over 2000 tweets and over 10,000 visits to the MonmouthpediA WikipediA entry.

... MonmouthpediA Return on Investment is unquantifiable at this time because every day the coverage increases and global interest intensifies. It has uniquely captured the imagination of global advertisers, broadcasters and engagers alike. The beauty of the project, is that whilst a small amount of financial resource has been provided (shared with WikimediA) to fund the role of a resident Wikipedian and specialist advisory support – the real resource has come from community members, groups, local businesses and the support of the global WikiepdiA community.

... The MonmouthpediA project directly links and contributes to the delivery of the Monmouthshire Destination Development Plan 2012 – 2015.

... Domain names MonmouthpediA and MonmouthpediAshire (and all the town and settlement names within) have been purchased and are exclusively owned by Monmouthshire County Council.

... the relationships forged with WikimediA UK have developed into a strong partnership that will enable the scaling up and replication of the project in other Monmouthshire towns and settlements. Potential ROI in both financial and social terms is significant and work is on-going to develop accurate metrics through which to measure rates of return.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:18 pm

A quick skim through the Council minutes shows that there are multiple references to the commercial impact of the project. It probably is worth reiterating that there is nothing inherently wrong in what GibraltarpediA and MonmouthpediA are seeking to achieve, and as far as the organisations on the other end, I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. In fact, I don't really have a problem with WMUK doing this either. The only issue is that both projects seem to have developed in a way that required the placement of a paid individual which just so happened to be a trustee of the charity, and when questioned about this, all the responses given are "trust me" and "I don't remember".

The daft thing is that there is nothing of interest in that MOU which should be embarrassing aside from the rather odd position of Roger signing for both sides of the table, it appears. Yet another example of Wikipedians being so scared of scrutiny that the way that they deal with the issue becomes more of the problem than the issue itself.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:23 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Most interesting is that Bamkin, who was getting paid for this project (not disclosed in the document) was signing as a Wiki UK trustee...

This needs to be repeated about 6,000 times on Jimbo's talk page, on Sue Gardner's talk page, and on every comment field on every news story that ran about Gibraltarpedia... until the fops in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation understand that they have been coddling a serious problem.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:40 pm

dogbiscuit wrote: ... It probably is worth reiterating that there is nothing inherently wrong in what GibraltarpediA and MonmouthpediA are seeking to achieve, and as far as the organisations on the other end, I see nothing wrong with what they are doing...

poorly stated, you just can't separate the new content creation from the rest of it;
1. What about the other venues competing for tourist dollars. It will appear to them that they have the pay the man, like Monmouth did, or else be left out in the cold on the world's most popular reference site, which is supposedly neutral and non-profit.
2. The editors participating in this project could not have been aware how they were being used ... doing valuable commercial work for free, others making money off their back ...
3. Inside deals, back scratching, a board member of a non-profit hired to harness that non-profit for commercial purposes, and probably a dozen other angles...
4. The aftermath ... Pulling teeth is easier than getting information from these people, much less an acknowledgment, not to mention an apology. Merely raising the issue invites vicious responses. The people involved are not trustworth, and actually dangerous to the project, like cancer.
...just off the top of my head.