User talk:Tango/Consultancy

Hi Tango, in a narrow sense I think that if the community allowed it this could work. At least as far as the paid editors and their clients were concerned. I think you'd have a problem recruiting unpaid volunteer trustees who were willing to take responsibility for a business that others profited from and they didn't. Though you might find that a little easier if this was employing people who otherwise struggle in the job market - wheel chair users for example. You'd have a bigger problem with the community as this is clearly paid editing, and paid editing by people who know their way round Wikipedia. In my view any situation where Wikipedians take on paying clients is going to be contentious, and those Wikipedians who participate are going to come under pressure to edit favourably to their clients. BTW thanks for moving this to a wiki, but it should really have been meta or Wikipedia EN as this really isn't something where the UK could have different rules. WereSpielChequers (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point that finding the directors (they're not really trustees - it's not a trust) could be difficult. I don't think it would be too much work, though, and you get to help raise money for WMUK and take business away from people that are doing the same thing in the wrong way. If you want the business to be successful, then you need to hire people based on their ability to do the job. Positive discrimination is just as bad for business as negative discrimination. This is very specifically not paid editing. The consultants wouldn't be doing anything other than the things we tell people with conflicts of interest they ought to be doing (posting on talk pages, mostly). It's not really any different to a member of staff at a company emailing OTRS and going through all the steps they are told about, just that the consultant knows how to do it more effectively. I chose to post this here because I think if this were to happen, it would be very closely affiliated with (if not owned by) Wikimedia UK. (There could be similar businesses in other countries, of course.) Also, there is a chance of getting a fair hearing here - if this were on meta or enwiki, any productive discussion would get drowned out. --Tango (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fleshing this out. I do agree with the underlying problem statement: the present complaints system is full of pitfalls, and is positively customer-hostile to anyone who does not speak "the right language". I've dropped a link to this page on the CREWE Facebook page, and have also added a link and brief summary (feel free to edit it) in en:WP in the ongoing discussion on Jimbo's talk page about how the Wikipedia complaints system could be improved. Andreas JN 01:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a replica of what I do for companies, except that profits are donated to WMF. I am not sure it's a good idea for WMF to get involved in a for-profit consultancy service related to its own website, but clearer guidelines and processes for corporate participation on Wikipedia will result in the behavior your advocating for in the commercial sector.

On the other hand, companies willing to give up editorial control could follow a similar model using the reward board, which puts WMF in a less awkward position. If company XYZ posts a $1,000 reward for a GA article, that would blow up the reward board.

One of the problems isn't that Wikipedia consultants don't know ethical best practices, but that companies themselves (the clients) don't know what is or isn't ethical. There is so much misinformation on the topic, that otherwise ethical companies unknowingly engage in unlawful astroturfing on Wikipedia, while other ethical companies wrongly believe that any participation on Wikipedia is risky and unethical.

If we can establish clearer boundaries, companies will participate in the manner outlined in this page on their own, whether through a consultant or in-house. Corporate 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Third party certification

One of the suggestions I raised several months ago with the board, before we placed a contract for Train the Trainers, was to not provide Train the Trainers courses under the Wikimedia UK umbrella. I suggested providing this as a Third Party certification scheme and let the independent body deliver the training, which may be on a non-profit basis. Your current concept mentions that this might be a "trading subsidiary of Wikimedia UK, then the Wikimedia UK board would appoint the directors" — this sets my alarm bells ringing and my intuition is that such a scheme would not truly be open enough to meet our values, however a third party scheme would ensure that the only involvement of Wikimedia UK would be in establishing the standards for third party delivery, after that any organization could deliver training, consultancy or other services without needing any permission, control or partnership with Wikimedia UK. The implementation of certification (and hence ensuring appropriate governance throughout), would be the full responsibility, and under the authority of, the NFP third party body. This would also enable healthy competition for anyone that wished to deliver certified services on a commercial basis.

Even though a second run of the course is scheduled for the end of this month, I am strongly recommending Wikimedia UK reconsider the current Train the Training programme and, if the board can ever reach a ruddy consensus on this point, ask current attendees to either sign up on the basis of them never delivering a commercial service, or to ask those attendees that might use the training in this way, to defer until we have a better arrangement where Wikimedia UK is not using charitable monies to fund people to be certified for a service they may commercialize — to be clear, even if this is the case, such a scheme is fully within the guidelines of the Charity Commission and many cases can be found of other UK charities that have such schemes. For me, in consideration of the values of our wider community and my ethical compass, this is not a grey area, but of course, I cannot speak for the Board as a whole and am writing my personal viewpoint here, as we do not yet have a joint agreed position.

For reasons of super transparency and openness, I will declare that in the last millennium, I worked with Logica and my experience in how third party frameworks are established is based on that experience. I have no current or recent interests that are relevant to declare, otherwise you would already know about them and they would be listed on Declarations of Interest. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would solve the problem I describe. A key part of my idea is that it ensures the control of the consultancy service rests with Wikimedians that are doing it for the benefit of the movement. Your idea would ensure the consultants know what they ought to be doing, but there would be no way to ensure they actually do it. In what way is my idea "not open"? What definition of "open" are you using? --Tango (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The scheme you suggest is not open in a commercial competitive sense as it appears limited to a subsidiary or parter (or series of partnerships) of Wikimedia UK that are likely to be composed of sole trader Wikimedians wanting to get paid on a day rate for extra pocket money. Under a third party scheme, it must remain fully open to the market, including any training or consultancy companies of any kind that can meet the third party assessed criteria, such as Midas Training or much larger commercial beasts such as CGI. The question of "benefit to the movement" would be addressed by the criteria and standards that Wikimedia UK would be active in establishing and would have no market validity were Wikimedia UK (or potentially the Wikimedia Foundation) were to refuse to agree them. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)