Talk:Principles for WiR and Volunteer Conflicts of Interest policy

Please discuss!

Comments

Here are my initial thoughts on the principles:

Wikimedians in Residence

1. Applying the same standards throughout has the benefit that any derived policy is simple and it avoids problems when the funding basis could change in mid-process.
2. An open recruitment process is condicio sine qua non for us.
3. It is clearly desirable to avoid having to ask for the Charity Commission's authority by following their requirements. However, I cannot see the benefit of going beyond requiring a Trustee to resign prior to a job offer being made. What do we gain by asking a Trustee to resign if they simply apply for a particular job? We could lose a Trustee who is then not subsequently short-listed or interviewed, and we need to be clear in a Principle the benefit we are weighing against that risk.

Volunteers in positions of trust

1. Principles either apply or they don't. So it's best not to describe 'in particular' circumstances, because you implicitly weaken the principle in other areas that you may not have considered. I understand your concern to single out CoI, but actually the principle must apply equally to all areas when the behaviour of Committee Members may be examined.
2. The principle is that 'clear guidance and processes about what this means in practice' shall be in place before we delegate to a subcommittee.

Independent Wikimedia outreach / consultancy work and other volunteer conflicts of interest

1. The first sentence is a sensible principle. The second exceeds our remit and I oppose it. I don't mind volunteers voluntarily disclosing their interests, but I don't want the responsibility of being forced to take on the management of an unlimited number of CoIs, and I'm not sure it's a sensible use of Trustees' time. It makes you wonder how volunteers manage to take part in activities in areas where there is no Chapter.
2. I can't support a principle that discriminates against volunteers who earn a living by training. I know what you're worried about, but there is no justification for a principle that effectively says "If you earn a living by training people to use Microsoft Office, you're eligible for a scholarship, but if you earn a living by training people to edit Wikipedia, you're not". What about our own Staff? Are they disqualified by this principle? If not, how are they different? If so, what advantage does that bring?
3. Same as above.
4. ditto.
5. Confidentiality is condicio sine qua non for us. As for a "high level of confidentiality" in this case, do we treat any declarations with a "low level of confidentiality"? Does that even have any meaning?
6. This is an important principle that goes beyond any Charity Commission requirements, and even beyond Nolan standards. However, I have become convinced that we will eventually have to adopt this line because of our inability to defend ourselves against malicious and mendacious accusations, unless we put the issue beyond any possible doubt. We will debar quite a few potential Trustees, but I expect that this principle is what the membership wants.

--RexxS (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Confidentiality

I may have further comments later, but I'll start pointing out that confidentially is not always an option. Conflicts need to be declared to whoever needs to know, not just trustees and staff. For example, if you are participating in a discussion about an area where you have a conflict, then you need to declare it to everyone else in the discussion and anyone observing the discussion. --Tango (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, before expecting everyone in our Wikimedia universe to start making public and confidential declarations, we need to agree what is or is not perceived to be a declarable conflict of interest or a conflict of loyalties. Much dialogue on this matter incorrectly assumes we are only intending to expect declarations of current financial interests and this proposed document gives that same impression. As an example, the Wikimedia UK trustees do not have a common interpretation or definition on conflict of loyalties to apply to themselves, and in particular we have no agreement as to what might be expected to be declared on the public DOI page and what might be suitable to remain in confidence or undeclared as it is sufficiently irrelevant to our activities as a charity. It could well be that we will later be judged to have got this balance wrong when measured against our ability to manage reputational risk. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why our definition of a conflict would be any different to anyone else's. The Charity Commission gives the following definition: "A conflict of interest is any situation in which a trustee's personal interests, or interests that they owe to another body, may (or may appear to) influence or affect the trustee's decision making."[1]. It's talking specifically about trustee's, but it's a general definition. It's the same definition as is used in the business world, in politics and any other situation where people make decisions on behalf of others. I really don't think it is that difficult to determine what does and does not create a conflict. There are always going to be corner cases where it may be hard to judge, but the vast majority of the time it is very easy to know if you have a conflict of interest.

With the exception of people disrupting the interest register to make a point by declaring things like being bought lunch (I don't believe Jon genuinely thought that was an interest), can you give any examples of any situations involving WMUK that have occured where it wasn't clear if something should be considered a conflict of interest or not? --Tango (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some illustrative examples that apply to trustees, staff and volunteers. It would not be appropriate for me to make the details public of confidentially declared interests, however these are realistic examples to consider.

1. Being involved in funding bids to the a finding body in prior years for projects and then being involved in joint WMUK projects with the same funding body and/or the same institutions and projects.
2. Proposing WMUK projects with partner institutions where you have been an employee or long term volunteer in the past.
3. Proposing suppliers and contractors for WMUK projects where you have a past (even long past) non-financial relationship with the individuals or institutions bidding.

If you believe that assessing the line between friendship, past work experience and the Charity Commission's loose definition of conflict of loyalties is easy to determine, especially if we require public declarations even where this may become intrusive into the private life of the volunteer such that they may choose to cease volunteering rather than comply, then you may be missing the point. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

One has to draw the line somewhere. If you have a relationship with a person or company and are making decisions that would benefit them then there is a reason to declare that as others might well think that someone who works for or owns shares in an organisation might be favourably disposed to them. But why bother about former links? The rest of the UK seems to be happy to work on the basis that after you have sold all your shares in an organisation you no longer have a conflict of interest if you do something that might influence the futue dividends of those shares. Why would we need to go further than that? WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another view

I write as a consultant who undertakes, among other things, Wikipedia related business (delivering training and advice); as a paid Wikipedian in residence on a project which I initiated myself, without the involvement of Wikimedia-UK; as a very active volunteer Wikimedian; as a volunteer directly for Wikimedia-UK; and as a paid-up member of Wikimedia-UK. I attended Wikimania 2012 and events in UK, The Netherlands and Germany with expenses met by Wikimedia-UK. I have a declaration of interests page in my en.Wikipedia user space, linked from my main user page.

Firstly, I endorse the comments made by RexxS, above, on 15 November.

I would never expect Wikimedia-UK to fund my business expenses. For example, I would never submit travel or subsistence expenses for an event for which I was being paid.

However as a Wikimedia-UK member, I believe I am entitled to the same level of support from the organisation, for my voluntary activities as any other member, and the same opportunities to participate in Wikimedia-UK events, or other events for which Wikimedia-UK offers support such as scholarships.

I would also expect Wikimedia-UK to support my professional work, where appropriate, in the same way that it supports the work of (and of people employed by), say, GLAMs, voluntary organisations, universities and other fellow supporters of the open movement.

I have been undertaking voluntary work since my schooldays for a variety of different charities and other non-profit organisations, large and small. I am a trustee of a registered charity. I have never heard any of those organisations raising concerns about supposed CoI relating to people's professional work, outside the responsibilities of trustees. The RSPB, for instance, have never asked and my fellow volunteers whether we are paid to lead birding tours, or entertain and teach children, or take bird photographs, or write about birds, or maintain websites about birds, or keep a shop, or manage livestock, or maintain, say, woodland, as many of its volunteers are, and which we do regularly for them. When they have sent me on training courses, at their cost, or paid my expenses to attend an event, they have never asked me whether that might bring me "indirect benefit", by, for instance, making me more attractive to potential employers or clients, or helping me in my paid work. Their concern is that I have the necessary skills and knowledge to be able to undertake the voluntary roles which contribute to their mission. Indeed, many RSBP volunteers go on to work as professionals with other conservation bodies, and this is promoted as an incentive to people to volunteer with them, by the RSPB themselves.

There is a strong and clear danger that, by overreacting to recent criticism, much undue, Wikimedia-UK will alienate existing volunteers and dissuade new ones. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)