Water cooler

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Photography training workshops for volunteers

Hello everyone. I've been looking in to the possibility of offering some photography training for Wikimedia volunteers. This is definitely something we can do in the form of one-day workshops for small groups. This would be delivered at no cost to the volunteers so at this point I'd like to assess how much appetite there is for this kind of workshop and get a sense of how many people would like to take part. This would be a really worthwhile activity and help to empower volunteers and give them additional skills that can be used not only when contributing to Wikimedia projects, but elsewhere, too. If you are interested, please do let me know, either by replying here or sending me an email. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Twitter user and Wiki Loves Monuments participant @secretlondon has expressed an interest so far. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RodW is interested in a session in the Bath / Bristol area. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in the Bath / Bristol area. Rwendland (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to go to a workshop like this. I'm not averse to travelling, so Bristol would be fine (Bath's a bit of a pain but not impossible). Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in such a workshop in London. Edwardx (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I found the photography workshop in Edinburgh enormously useful. But, my experience from that suggests such should be preferentially offered to established Wikimedians. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would be interested if held in London (or a short train ride away). A segment to discuss some of the issues relating to uploading user photographs that can cause snags could be useful; I would be happy to share some examples from my 150,000 image uploads. Common issues include erroneous or non-standard EXIF data (leading to bots reaching wrong conclusions), the impossibility of finding non-identical duplicates, work for hire, model consent, video processing, and unexpected copyright issues from photographs taken in other countries (assuming the group has a good awareness of UK copyright) such as photographs where there is no freedom of panorama or photographs of manufactured products. If there was interest then a discussion of tools for mass processing could also be productive for those with larger collections. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your interest so far. I'm going to leave this open for a short while longer but it looks like we may have enough people interested to have a cohort in London and one in Bristol. I'm particularly keen to offer this to any other volunteers who attend Wikimedia UK events (especially training) on a fairly regular basis. Fae, your suggestions here are useful and I think that there would be a chance to raise some of these issues with a trainer, particularly the batch processing. I know that Adobe Photoshop can handle this, I suspect that GIMP can too. However, the main (aha) focus of the event would be how to take technically good photos rather than spending too much time looking at copyright, freedom of panorama and so on. I think that would be an altogether different session and might be something that we could do separately. There may well be someone who is an expert on copyright who would deliver perhaps a half day seminar / workshop for those interested in that area. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Fae and I between probably know as much about UK copyright as a hired instructor would! ;) I'd love to talk about mass-uploading and some of the other issues Fae raises, but as you say, Stevie, they might best saved for another event. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I could help in London and maybe in Bristol too. Would you like a talk on UK copyright for photographers? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a couple of thousand photos as a volunteer and would be interested in a photography course, preferably in London. A copyright session might also be interesting, presumably this would also cover issues for uploaders? Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Just a quick update on this. It is still on the agenda but we are looking to extend the offer to Wiki Loves Monuments participants (this depends on whether the level of demand makes this unrealistic). I will be in touch again about this shortly. Michael, your offer to speak about copyright is gratefully received and I may well accept it :) Thanks everyone. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Alastair McCapra's declaration of interest

I am grateful to see Alastair update his declaration at Declarations_of_Interest#Alastair_McCapra in advance of taking up the role of CEO of CIPR.

CIPR and WMUK have had a productive relationship in the past, however this appears to introduce a direct conflict on interest on the WMUK board. During my time as a trustee and the Chair, the viewpoints of board members were varied, complex and at times heated, with regard to failures of governance within the PR industry, which resulted in a pattern of PR professionals being caught out when covertly attempting to manipulate the content of Wikimedia projects.

In my personal view, though I respect CIPR and the impressive lead it has taken to guide the industry, especially around individual governance, the mission of CIPR is not one that sits well alongside the WMUK mission and values. We now have the situation where a trustee on the board is a paid advocate on behalf of the public relations profession. Having the CEO of CIPR advise the WMUK board is incredibly useful and valuable, having the same person as the WMUK Secretary and a voting trustee, introduces a realistic reputational risk for WMUK to be open to future allegations of using resources and putting political pressure on Wikimedia projects to the benefit of the PR industry.

I would appreciate Alastair's thoughts on how he intends to manage his conflict of interest and whether he believes it is best for the charity to continue as the Secretary and a Trustee on the board in these circumstances.

Should Alastair remain active as a trustee, I call upon the board of trustees to openly publish an independent review of this conflict of interest in advance of Alastair taking up his new role in November. Considering Alastair's appointment was made public more than a fortnight ago and he would have advised his fellow trustees in advance of his appointment, though to my knowledge not before his election at the AGM, I am sure this has been subject to an in-camera review which might now be useful to publish for the benefit of the members of the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These two roles are fundamentally incompatible in my view given the respective functions of the two organisations and I do not believe that Alastair can carry out the duties of both jobs without an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Alastair should either resign here or not take up the other job.If he does not he will inevitably be accused, unfairly no doubt, of being a trojan horse for the PR industry. I have met Alastair and he seems a completely ethical individual, however, the very idea that this could be managed or that the two roles could ever be compatible shows an astonishing lack of judgement by Alastair and the current board IMHO. I am sorry to be so blunt. The next time an article on Wikipedia does not go the way the PR industry would like, will he not inevitably be asked to exert pressure via Wikimedia to have it changed? I thought that Wikimedia UK were working to avoid the own-goals that have so damaged us in the past? It would be interesting to know what influence, if any, Alastair's current position here had on his selection for the CIPR job and whether he knew of this potential position at CIPR at the time he stood for the Wikimedia board. Perhaps Alastair could clarify these matters. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae. Can't say I agree with you here. On the subject of conflicts of interest - Wikimedia UK's work does not really involve the PR industry. We do a great deal of work with the education and culture sectors, but the only project involving the public relations profession that I can recall was the collaboration between volunteers who were Wikimedia UK members and CIPR members to produce what was effectively a guide on how people in PR could understand and respect Wikipedia policies. That was a very worthwhile initiative, but nothing further is planned. We have always been very clear that Wikimedia UK has no control over the content of the Wikimedia projects and even less over the policies governing such content. So I do not see any conflict of interest. Naturally we're all aware of one another's professional backgrounds, which are disclosed on our register of interests, and I am confident that should any potential conflict arise from any quarter it will be identified early and dealt with properly.

Regarding reputational risk, I also can't agree. It's important to note that the CIPR is not a PR firm, it is a professional body which helps ensure that people who work in PR do so competently and ethically. The CIPR has a Code of Conduct for its members which requires them to act with integrity and transparency, principles all Wikimedians will be familiar with. Regards, The Land (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not be naive, the CIPR is not a regulator. It is paid for by the PR industry, its members are PR professionals, its job is to promote the interests of the PR industry and it's code of conduct is written by the PR industry. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) "Wikimedia UK's work does not really involve the PR industry". I think the "really" tells the story here. Some of what Wikimedia UK does does involve PR firms; and by its very nature that small sliver of its activities are also among the most media-friendly. It will look like a COI to the press. It will look like a COI *problem* to the press. It is sad, really, because the truth of the matter rarely gets a look in. We are forced to (and must) discuss issues like this in terms of appearances and not realities. Jarry1250 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not be naive about anything, least of all COI on the Board. But we might try to state a point clearly in terms of the Board's function. Is it to influence Wikipedia content? No. Is it to influence creators and potential creators of Wikipedia content? Certainly. Wikipedia's "interface" with PR professionals is not in a particularly good state, compared to the interface with the "cultural sector", where some good things have been happening, and the educational sector, where some good things might be happening. The suspicion with which it is treated is understandable. The upside of closer contact is fairly easy to explain: if PR pros who muck around on Wikipedia are shown that they are not only behaving unprofessionally, but against their clients' best interests, then they will realise why they should take greater care to respect the terms of use of the site. Not rocket science. The downside is what is generating comment here. Does the Board influence Wikipedia policy? Hardly. Seems to be a presentational matter to me in fact. Now I disclaim expertise in presentational matters. But it seems a shame that this line is being taken: it is not about nuances, it speaks to what the Board does and doesn't have in its remit. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles, the board makes direct choices as to how to spend £750,000 of Wikimedia Foundation funds. This is a great deal of influence to give out jobs and grants and choose what outcomes are required. These outcomes include generating content on Wikimedia projects (such as through Wikimedians in Residence) and co-funding initiatives with other bodies that generate a lot of press interest and media coverage. To say that the board of trustees has no influence over Wikimedia policies is to disregard their influence in controlling who gets funded, for example, to present at events or take part in workshops that create Wikipedia policy, and be the visible face of Wikimedia in the UK and elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So the Board has patronage. I didn't use the expression "Wikimedia policies", which is ambiguous because "Wikimedia" is ambiguous. You make a reasonable point about events, though my impression is that the staff now do a high proportion of the event organisation.. Workshops that create Wikipedia policy? I believe the community does that. Being the "visible face"? I've gone on the BBC to bat for Wikipedia, as have a few others. There is some patronage in sending reps to chapters meetings or funding Wikimania scholarships. Are people's concerns really at this granularity? Of course if you want to make the case that anyone from the PR sector is an entryist and should be treated as such, it is a one-liner. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris, please read my statement again. I have asked for a response from Alastair and a follow-up with an independent report. As the current Chairman of the charity, I would expect you to take a lead to ensure these basics are done, in alignment with policies that we established to cover these situations. You appear to be disagreeing with what you imagine I am asking for, rather than what has actually been written. I see nothing for you to disagree with in a basic request for openness with the members of the charity and for the charity to be conducting itself with the best possible governance processes. If you are disagreeing with an independent review or are disagreeing with Alastair making a response, then I would appreciate a better explanation of why you, as the Chair, believe these are bad things.

By the way, I suggest members carefully review CIPR's mission statement, it unambiguously states it exists as an "advocate and voice of the public relations profession", it is not just about ethics. I doubt the public would have any other expectation than the CEO of the organization to also be an advocate for the PR sector and present it in the best possible light at every opportunity. --Fæ (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it has been known for the Board to be used as a soapbox. For example to be an advocate for free software, and present it in the best possible light at every opportunity. Certainly we should not be naive about this kind of thing, when it runs counter to the purposes of the charity. Might be rather easier to do in the case of someone with a clearcut day job. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear all - thanks for the comments. Having spoken to Alastair, he's keen to respond to the points that have been raised, and expects to be able to do so by the weekend. Philafrenzy referred to the lessons of the last year - one of the main ones is that the trust of the membership and the Wikimedia community is vital - and we'll respond to this debate accordingly. The Land (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi - Sorry it has taken me a bit of time to reply to the points made above. First I’d like to say I understand why there is concern about conflict of interests on the Board. Anything which looks like it might corrupt the integrity of the encyclopedia is a potential threat, and WMUK has suffered badly in recent years from conflicts of interest which have cost it a lot and which nobody wants to repeat. Second I want to acknowledge the particular concerns people have about some members of the PR industry.

I am not a PR professional and had no previous connection with the PR business before applying for a job as CEO of CIPR. Coincidentally this was around the same time I stood for election as a WMUK trustee. I had applied for the job at CIPR before the WMUK AGM, and had my first interview a couple of weeks after I was elected to the Board. I was aware before I stood for election of many of the problems which WMUK has had to deal with recently, but wasn’t aware of the problems that had arisen as a result of Wikipedia editors defending the integrity of the encyclopedia from people who perhaps did not understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. As a prospective employee I had to declare my various interests, including my recent WMUK election, to CIPR before I accepted the job, and I did so. I only learned of the issues which are causing concern here when I was made aware of them by CIPR after I had accepted the job.

I am very clear about what my role as a trustee is. It is to advance the charitable objects of WMUK in the public interest. Those are to promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to open content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature. I am not there to advocate the cause of the PR profession, or to secure some kind of rule-bending on behalf of PRs working for their clients. Every trustee on the Board has a daytime job to which they give their full professional commitment, and none of us acts as an advocate for that industry or interest on the WMUK Board.

The reasons I stood for election to the WMUK Board are simple. Firstly, I believe in the project of building free, open knowledge all round the world, and in particular, in the immense benefit to humanity of a universal encyclopedia. Secondly, I am an experienced trustee and manager of small charities. I have dealt with dire financial crises, major overhauls of governance, and most of the other problems that beset charities at one time or another. I believed, as I still do, that my experience and skills can make a useful contribution to WMUK and that I can help it specifically to get itself out of the difficulties it got itself into in the last couple of years over governance. I currently serve on the Audit and Risk Committee where I am helping establish reliable financial controls, and as Secretary I am working to clear the backlog of unpublished minutes of Board meetings, or parts of meetings, which stretches back to 2009. I have also met with representatives of WMF and talked to them about the changes we are bringing about in the UK chapter, with a view to their agreeing, in due course, to allow us to take part in future fundraisers.

The question has been asked as to how I think I will manage my conflict of interest. I think I would genuinely have a conflict of interest if I had any desire or inclination to argue, in the WMUK Board, for some special treatment of PR professionals or for some bending or relaxing of Wikipedia editing rules. However, I don’t have any desire or intention to do this, and it is not part of my new job to speak up for bad editing or to defend the practices of PR professionals who don't follow WM rules.

As it happens, well before I had any contact with either Wikipedia or CIPR, the two bodies had collaborated to produce guidelines for best practice on the part of PR professionals on Wikipedia, and these are published on the WMUK site at https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR . They represent the official CIPR position. Despite this, I think it is possible, in my new role, that I may be approached by some CIPR members who are unaware of these guidelines, asking me to ‘do something’ about ‘their’ article. If I am, I will refer them to this page. If there appears to be a widespread and persistent problem with CIPR members reading or abiding by those guidelines, then I will propose some training sessions to help them get their heads round it. In the extremely unlikely event that one of my employers becomes threatening in their demands that I conspire to subvert the encyclopedia, I will bring a professional conduct complaint against them. However, in considering what pressures I may come under in my new role, I take comfort in the fact that the incoming CIPR President, Stephen Waddington, authored a chapter on Wikipedia in a recently published handbook for PR Professionals, in which he restates what is set out in the guidelines above.

If some community members are inclined to assume bad faith on my part, or just some ethical fuzziness, such suspicions are perhaps natural as I am new, you don’t know me, and my new job stirs up understandable anxieties. However if this is how you feel I hope you will at least have enough faith in the integrity of other Board members to believe that they would absolutely not tolerate any inappropriate behaviour on my part, and if they thought I was trying to open the encyclopedia to manipulation I would be removed from the Board pretty quickly.

Aside from whether I might be tempted to try and undermine the cause I stood for election to uphold, the question has been raised about the reputational risk of my continuing to serve as a trustee. As I say I understand the reasons why some community members may have anxieties about my roles, but outside of this community I’d be very surprised if anyone was much interested. The conflicts between PRs and editors is pretty big news in the Wikipedia community and fairly big in the PR profession, but not of much interest outside of that.

The question has also been raised about the press and what they might make of my roles. If you have a look at what negative stories tend to run in the press about Wikipedia, it is usually about hoaxes, inaccuracies, trustees being paid to work on projects, and pornography. Would the press really get excited about my job? It doesn't seem likely to me.

Perhaps I am just not being sufficiently imaginative in my thinking about these issues and others can foresee scenarios that it would be potentially much more difficult for me to handle. If so, by all means raise them here as I need to think about these issues and my fellow Board members need to be mindful of them too. What kind of difficult position do you think I might find myself in?

Fae has suggested that there should be an independent review of this matter and in fact we are about to undertake an independent governance review in any case to see how the charity is responding to past criticisms and dealing with its problems. I think it would make sense for the consultants to give us their view on this matter.

For now, my commitment to working for WMUK is undimmed, I wish to continue to serve on the Board and don’t feel, on the basis of what has been said above, that there is a strong case for my not doing so.

Thanks

Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to have the fullest discussion possible I have posted this matter on Jimbo's talk page, one of our unofficial noticeboards. Here is the link and comments so far. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning, we've had trustees who have day jobs, in which capacity they are paid to work for different causes. We've had trustees who are communications professionals. We've had trustees who have changed day jobs while in post. From the above complaints I still don't see why this case is different. The speculation that "The next time an article on Wikipedia does not go the way the PR industry would like, will he not inevitably be asked to exert pressure via Wikimedia to have it changed?" misunderstands the relation between the chapter and Wikipedia (as though the chapter can "have it changed"!) Did having an employee of Manchester University on the board mean that Wikipedia policies might be changed, or funds allocated, to the benefit of Manchester University? I also disagree with Jarry that we must discuss appearances rather than reality. Are there people really wishing for Wikimedia politics to become like Westminster politics? Given the amount of experience of charity governance now on the Board, and the scrutiny the organisation is voluntarily under, the idea that Alastair is going to "trojan horse" something against Wikimedia's interest, and that the Board are going to allow him, seems more than far-fetched. If we're keen to avoid own goals, then let's avoid undermining a dedicated and capable volunteer. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This case is different and it should be obvious why. We need to stop walking into these bear traps (I won't name them all) and then having to spend a year commissioning governance reviews to sort them out. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As the employee of the University of Manchester that Martin refers to, I'd note that I had a very clear declaration of interest and statement of how that interest would be managed - "Mike is an employee of the University of Manchester. Some of our activities take place at this University, and he will abstain on all decisions relating to the University of Manchester." Indeed, during the July 2013 board meeting there was a decision relating to the UoM (funding a WiR there), and I duly abstained from it. I would encourage Alastair to do something similar - rather than just stating the CoI, clearly set out the terms for how it will be managed to avoid it being an issue. Although in this case the management will be more complex as it would extend not just to the CIPR, but also the organisations it represents, I think this could still be a managable CoI providing that there is a clear line set in place well before he takes up the position. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For those who don't know the background, and for avoidance of doubt: I mentioned Mike's workplace because he was (rightly) a highly respected trustee who left in good standing, such that we can safely laugh off an argument which would have excluded him. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How can I put this in simple terms? The Vegetarian Association and the National Beef Association may wish to understand each other better, but they can never fundamentally be in sympathy and you can never imagine the head of the National Beef Association being a senior figure in the Vegetarian Association can you? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments above are all helpful in terms of setting out what I think the issue is here – particularly the Vegetarian/National Beef Association one. If I was a trustee of the Vegetarian Association but taking a paid job with the League for the Introduction of meat-based products into vegetarian recipes, I would clearly have a total conflict of interest. Supposing however I took a paid job with a non-Vegetarian association which had a published policy directing its members to respect and abide by the nutritional rules of the Vegetarian Association when dealing with it? That’s actually the situation I’m in. My future employer is on of the few organisations in the country which has explicitly directed its members to follow Wikipedia rules. If CIPR members don’t follow the rules they are not just damaging the encyclopedia, they are failing to abide by the guidance given to them by their professional body. That does not leave much room for conflict. The reference to Mike Peel’s employment is also illustrative of what the term ‘conflict of interest’ actually means (as in, it doesn’t mean ‘something I don’t much like the sound of’). While Mike was on the WMUK Board there was a possibility that the chapter could discuss funding a project at Manchester or somehow involving them, which would potentially put Mike in the position of taking part in a discussion as a funder with an entity being funded. I know from personal experience that Mike was absolutely scrupulous about making sure this did not happen. I doubt it is likely that the WMUK Board would be discussing funding something with CIPR. If it does discuss something of this sort, I will act as Mike did and take no part in it. The same would apply to any trustee in any job. Mike has also pointed out that I need to make a statement about how I will manage any conflicts of interest which may arise, and I will do so. A statement will need to cover as many ‘what if’ scenarios as possible. As I mentioned earlier today it would be helpful to me in thinking about this for people to come forward with ‘what if’ questions so that I can set out clearly what I would do in each case and include all of that in my statement. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I wonder why Alistair feels it appropriate to encourage members to spend their time coming up with a series of "What if" scenarios, when he should be encouraging us to contribute towards Wikipedia and its sister projects. The very fact, which he supports, that there are a range of unpredictable scenarios would seem to indicate that this is a matter which cannot be effectively dealt with by a statement. When he points out that his future employers are one of "the few organisations in the country which has explicitly directed its members to follow Wikipedia rules", far from indicating a lack of conflict of interest, this rather indicates the contrary: for most organisations there is no specific reason to issue such guidance. As a trustee Alistair should be looking at the matter from the perspective of the charity, and I hope he will consider the situation fully before embroils us all in another governance debate.Leutha (talk) (Sorry I forget to log in before) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not intending to ask anyone to spend a lot of time on this or embroil anyone in anything. However I would appreciate it if some of those are arguing strongly that there is obviously a conflict of interest could spell out how, in practical terms, they think this might present itself. I can think of a few not very likely scenarios, which I have mentioned above. But clearly some people feel there are aspects of this I have not fully addressed. What are they? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

CIPR define public relations as "the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour." (my italics) The second of our five pillars states that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. The essential job of the PR is to influence and manipulate public opinion to favour their client. This fundamentally conflicts with one of our highest principles and is why this appointment is a problem and why it is different from any other appointment. Aggravating factors include the already fraught relationship with the PR industry, which should serve as a warning to us, the disparity in commitment (full time CIPR, part time here) and pay (salaried I assume there, nothing here). No PR firm will ever seek any form of balance in their work. The work is essentially partisan and therefore the whole ethos of the profession is contrary to our values. A man cannot serve two masters, particularly where their objectives are fundamentally in conflict and where one pays and the other doesn't. It lacks credibility. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It may not be Alistair's intention to sap volunteers' time or embroil people, however this clearly what is happening as I find myself once again contributing to this discussion. I feel that his focus on his own psychological state (i.e. intentions) rather than on the consequences of his retaining both roles as Wikimedia UK Trustee and CIPR CEO illustrates the point I made above. I am also left wondering whether his failure to respond to my point is indicative that he hopes to discourage further critical comment by simply ignoring it! So perhaps I should be content myself with suggesting that Jimbo has made the point in a much better way than me:

"It is obviously a conflict of interest and clearly demands a choice between one or the other. There is no shame in that - such is the nature of nonprofit work. But especially for Wikimedia UK, with a history of problems in this area, it's absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt something that has to be handled with the utmost defensiveness about the reputation of the organization. I trust that Alastair will do the right thing." (See here)

Leutha (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Leutha and Philafrenzy. Some conflicts of interest can be managed. Mike Peel's employment by Manchester University is a good example. In these cases, setting out how the conflict will be managed and then managing it in an open way are, hopefully, sufficient. Some conflicts relate to the very purpose of organisations. These conflicts are effectively impossible to manage. The potentially problematic situations can not be listed in advance. They are infinite in their variety. Even if, as situations arise, the correct decisions are made, it will be impossible for the community to be confident of that. Alastair can not be expected to document his every conversation, still less his every thought. Yaris678 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problem in this case. Secretary of WMUK is not a position that comes into conflict with CEO of CIPR. WMUK as a whole has limited, if any, impact on public relations involvement in Wikipedia (positive or negative). Secretary is also not a good position from which to easily subvert the chapter and begin infiltrating the entire organisation. Even if, say, Alastair starts laughing maniacally the moment he becomes CEO and pushes for edit-a-thons and training sessions on white-washing biographies it (a) isn't going to mean anything because anyone else can undo it, (b) it will be really obvious if this happens, and (c) he isn't the only trustee. If anything, I expect the influence to work the other way: CEO of a national professional body is a position from which influence extends (and by which Wikimedia could subvert and infiltrate, etc). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You have identified one unlikely scenario that could be dealt with easily. But you seem to be missing my point that the purposes of the organisations are in conflict. FWIW, I don't suspect Alastair of being part of any plot and I really hope he can be part of there being a good relationship between WMUK and CIPR. However, he can't do that by holding both roles simultaneously. By having this unmanageable conflict of interest he could easily and unintentionally end up doing harm to both organisations. Yaris678 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I also don't suspect Alastair of being part of a plot but we can't know what was in the minds of the CIPR selectors when they gave him the job as Chief Exec in an industry in which, as he says, he had no past experience. I realise that Alastair had senior experience in similar membership organisations that no doubt fitted him for the job but there were, I expect, other candidates. The relationship with Wikipedia is certainly one of the hot issues in the PR world and given the poor quality of many of our articles I don't blame them. If I was a PR I would really want to ensure that my client's article reflected well on my client since it will be on the first page of a Google search every time and probably the top result. I would want to exert whatever influence I could to improve that article. That's what the PR industry is paid to do. It's not good enough to say "it probably won't happen" or "there is not much scope for it to happen" or "we will spot it if it does happen" or "the other Trustees will reign Alastair in" or any of the other things mentioned above. The Charities Commission has some useful comments about what they define as a "conflict of loyalty" which is also mentioned in the Companies Act 2006 in reference to Directors of charitable companies (we are caught by both sets of rules). Section d. here says conflicts of interest include those arising from "conflicts of duty which do not involve any material benefit to a director, for example, where a director is also a charity trustee of another charity which might be in competition with the charity ("conflicts of loyalty")" I don't think CIPR is a charity but the concept of a conflict of loyalty certainly seems to sum up what we have here. There is a risk of reputational damage to Wikimedia UK, to the CIPR and to Alastair himself that we would all be wise to avoid. In fact, I am a little surprised that CIPR, if they are as principled as they say they are, have not asked Alastair to resign here. Why haven't they? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It has now been one week since Fae raised this here and I suspect that everyone who is going to add their views has done so. The matter has also been on Jimbo's talk page and in the Signpost. I believe I am correct that there does appear to be a consensus, including from certain people whose views we should respect, that this appointment represents a serious conflict of interest. Perhaps Alastair and the board could comment on what action, if any, they propose to take in this matter? I would be particularly interested to know whether any legal advice has been taken regarding the "conflict of loyalty" question and what the result of that advice was. I am sure nobody wants to give the impression that they are hoping the matter will just go away. Given the past problems in this area it is essential that a clear and robust rationale is given for any decisions taken. If the matter is still under discussion, please say so and give a timeline for when it may be resolved. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Philafrenzy - yes, happy to update you. We discussed this at the Board meeting on Saturday. The Board's view was that there was not a fundamental conflict between the two roles. It was important to us in reaching that conclusion that CIPR's formal position is that their members should respect Wikipedia policies and that deliberately seeking to circumvent those policies is unethical professional conduct. It is also worth noting that previously we have had Trustees who were professional media consultants without a scintilla of a suggestion that this conflicted with their role as Wikimedia UK trustees and directors.

Given the sensitivities of this and the views expressed here, Alastair and I are going to meet later this week to go through different scenarios that might be problematic and work out how we would handle each of them, and use that as the basis of a more thorough declaration along the lines of Mike Peel's suggestion. It is possible in that conversation we will find something that makes us think "actually this isn't going to work", but assuming that doesn't happen, Alastair will remain a valuable Trustee.

We are currently having our progress against the Hudson Review recommendations audited by a consultant called Rosie Chapman. We will ask her to review how we've handled this and include that in her report. The Land (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Alastair, you said above, "If you have a look at what negative stories tend to run in the press about Wikipedia, it is usually about hoaxes, inaccuracies, trustees being paid to work on projects, and pornography. Would the press really get excited about my job? It doesn't seem likely to me." If I look at the types of negative stories that have run in the press, one consistent theme – almost a meme, really – is covert exercise of influence on Wikipedia's content by PR professionals. Indeed, I have myself had a hand in alerting the press to several cases of this type. I can assure you that the press's interest in this type of story is significant, and rightly so, as there are few other scenarios more likely to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia than this one. Jimmy Wales has on several occasions been very outspoken about this matter and made comments that have attracted significant attention.

Now, like most matters related to Wikipedia, there are two sides to this issue.

On the one hand, Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to both subtle and gross bias and defamation. I would like PR professionals to have a seat at the Wikipedia table: there should be a much better-functioning mechanism for people to make complaints about how they are being portrayed in Wikipedia than there is at present. As it is, I cannot morally judge companies and other organisations who make clandestine use of commercial editing services to ensure that they are not being misrepresented in Wikipedia, given that Wikipedia's gates are wide open to clandestine bias and defamation from those companies' and organisations' detractors.

On the other hand, we are seeing more and more advice columns from PR professionals on how to leverage Wikipedia in their clients' or employers' interest. This includes both denigrating competitors, and sanitising one's own entry and/or making it as positive and compelling as possible. Allowing this to go on unchecked is not in the readers' or Wikipedia's interest.

The CIPR has done good work with WMUK in the past to outline some basic terms of engagement. But it cannot be denied that the interface between the PR industry and Wikipedia is among the biggest challenges both Wikipedia and the PR industry face. It is not a settled area; there are still diverse views, from Jimmy Wales' outspoken hostility to PR efforts in Wikipedia to the German model where PR professionals are invited to register verified company accounts ("User:Coca Cola Germany") and contribute in a transparent way. Dirk Franke in Germany is currently conducting a major study of paid editing for Wikimedia, and will I believe report in a few months' time. There is also uncertainty about the legal situation, at least in the EU – see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes this Signpost article. To my mind there is no doubt that the interaction between the PR industry and Wikipedia is an area that will continue to be negotiated and re-negotiated over the coming years (including, perhaps, the legal arena, to clarify what the law does and does not allow). The outcome of all these discussions is of vital interest to both parties and the public.

Wikimedia UK has played a significant role in this process in the past, and will continue to do so. However, it follows that your having a leadership role in both organisations, simultaneously, constitutes an ineluctable conflict of interest whenever the topic is raised, and that it will be perceived as such by the media and public. A collegial and productive relationship between WMUK and CIPR is, I believe, desirable, and as I say, there is past good work to build on here. But I believe that having one person perform a leadership role in both organisations will ultimately prove to be to the detriment of both. It will certainly make WMUK vulnerable. Regards, Andreas JN 18:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out and explaining aspects of this matter which may, as you indicate, have a bearing on whether or not I can continue to serve as a trustee. My belief is that as between my future employer and Wikimedia UK, these questions are settled, but as you point out there are much wider dimensions to be considered.

It may well be that for one reason or another my employment puts me in situations where I do indeed have a conflict of interest. If that turns out to be the case I am aware that I may have to resign. I certainly do not want to give everyone the impression that I am just insisting on carrying on, regardless of the circumstances.

For the time being, I have not even started to work for CIPR, so no situation of possible conflict has even arisen. The Wikimedia UK Board has discussed the situation and concluded, unanimously, that there is no reason for me to resign for the time being. Equally, if circumstances change, they may well come to a different view. I will be discussing the situation with our independent governance reviewer, and it may be that they will advise the Board that I should resign, in which case I will. I am certainly not interested in exposing Wikimedia UK to criticism or embarrassment. On the question of press interest, you may be aware that energetic efforts were made last week to interest the press in my two roles, and there was no interest whatsoever. What I do maintain, for now, is that there is nothing automatic in my roles which forces me to resign at once. If the situation changes, I won’t need pushing. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the board does not appear to have followed the processes that the previous board laid down after the lessons learned from how to manage Roger Bamkin's declared interest. There is no plan independently to manage Alastair's declared interest, with the default path of the Chair taking the lead seeming inappropriate as he started this discussion with the point of view that he could see no problem or risk to the charity.

Alastair actively failed to inform the board of trustees or the members of the charity in advance of being elected that he was planning to be paid as an advocate of the PR industry during his time as a trustee. There is no doubt that his election as a trustee would have been taken into consideration by CIPR as a direct benefit to his forthcoming job as their CEO. I am astonished that as a candidate for CEO of CIPR, Alastair states he knew nothing of the past work of CIPR with WMUK, or the associated controversies that have damaged Wikimedia's reputation. Such a lack of basic research from a prospective trustee is itself worrying. I now regret the two votes I used to support Alastair at the AGM (I was handling a proxy vote in addition to my own). Alistair would have lost many votes had he chosen to be frank about his plans. I have little doubt that he would not have been elected a trustee had this been openly discussed; certainly as a trustee at that time I would have advised him against running as a candidate had he chosen to consult the board on the potential risk.

The board of trustees is straining credibility by creating new artificial distinctions to justify Alastair's position as not a "fundamental" conflict of interest. No such distinction is recognized by the Charity Commission on handling conflicts of loyalty, or by the policies that pre-existed the board discovering this COI after it was announced in the press. During my time improving the governance processes of the charity in 2011/12, it was clear that a trustee does not need a "fundamental" COI to be expected to step down from the board. The convention is that any conflict of loyalties that may sway the board's opinion on how to deploy its resources or influence should be managed carefully and where doubt remains the simplest resolution is for the trustee to step down.

Alastair, please take the initiative and step down as a trustee. As Yaris678 points out, you do not have the confidence of the community you were elected by. This ongoing risk to the charity exists because you failed to manage your declaration in a timely or appropriate manner either with the members or the board of trustees. The story is dogging you as a scandal on the English Wikipedia (Signpost), on Jimmy Wales' talk page, else where off-wiki, and is unlikely to go away with the classic trick of re-framing rather than real action on your part.

I count 5 members have expressed serious concern here, as I recall it only takes this many to force the board to organize an EGM to resolve this problem should they not be able to do so. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae, I'm finding your comments here a little difficult to square with either the facts of the situation or your own previous conduct. The facts are that we have identified this well in advance of Alastair taking up this post and are looking at the issues posed in some detail prior to coming to a decision, and we are doing so with external advice. A number of members have expressed their views here, with a number of very cogent points being made on both sides of the debate, which are informing the outcome. Thinking this through is in line with our policies and with governance best practice. Knee-jerk reactions and drama are not in line with governance best practice.

It's also apparent that you are applying a very different standard to this situation than you did to yourself last year, when you clung on to the position of Chair as long as possible after you were banned from the English Wikipedia. The media coverage that resulted significantly damaged the reputation of the charity, and you would be wise to remember your own history before talking about failures by others. Regards, The Land (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, this is an example of the sort of pointless re-framing rather than action that I referred to. This discussion is about Alastair's resignation as a trustee, not mine. I am sure that a few members would find the history of your manipulative gaming, or the fact that you gave me and Mike a clear steer in Milan that you intended to step down as Chair soon after the AGM but have failed to do so, instead giving yourself at least the rest of this year even though Mike and I have now resigned ourselves from the board, quite interesting and an insight into the shenanigans that go on in-camera against the supposed "openness" the charity is supposed to value. However most members would find this boring or upsetting to review. Your political skills and associated professional background, or ability to bury and distract from your inappropriate conflict of loyalties while holding the post of Chair, is not the topic here and you might be better off not opening up every possible Pandora's box in your attempt to win what you see as an argument worth taking bad tempered pot-shots as me long after I have resigned as a trustee, rather than a serious governance issue for the charity, that you, as the current Chair, are supposed to take a lead in resolving by guiding Alastair to "do the right thing" as Jimmy Wales has recommended. Please properly fulfil the role of Chair in line with the policies of the charity, or step aside and let one of the more dispassionate trustees take a lead. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty clear about the action that's going on. However, for clarity: Alastair and I are looking at scenarios where the two positions might conflict, establishing whether we think those scenarios can appropriately be handled by recusal. If there is an actual situation which cannot be handled appropriately then Alastair will resign now. If there are hypothetical situations which cannot be handled appropriately then we will set out how to identify them if they occur and what to do if they do.

I don't really see how doing this constitutes re-framing, manipulative gaming, or any of the other things you're accusing me of. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK having a Chairman on the board of trustees is not intended to stop other trustees answering questions for themselves. Alastair is a PR professional and an elected trustee, so I feel he can probably reply for himself. I have asked for Alastair to resign now in order to remove the reputational risk he has become for the charity, conclude the debate his conflict of loyalties as a paid advocate for the PR industry has created, and out of personal respect for the votes of members that now feel let down by not being informed of the full facts at the time of the AGM. It seems pointless for Alastair's resignation to be left until he starts his role as CEO of CIPR when this was announced in the press a month ago.

By the way, if you insist on going on a delaying tangent by examining hypothetical avenues and scenario planning (this is hardly a complex situation, so I don't see why this takes more than 15 minutes), I suggest you start with "Members request an EGM", the resolution of which is that Alastair resigns before the EGM can be held and preferably before an EGM is proposed. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys,

1. Please try to refrain from personal attacks on each other and, where possible, on Alastair.
2. For the record, I'd didn't actually say the the community doesn't have confidence in Alastair. I said it would be impossible to have confidence in the right decisions having been made. Arguably the effect is the same, but, as per 1, let's try not to be personal about this.
3. Taking time to consider scenarios implies you either didn't read this comment, above, or you just disagree with it. Any particular reason? Please don't just say that you disagree that the purposes are in conflict. That would be saying that you disagree because you disagree.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yaris. Just wanted to respond quickly to your third point before most likely going offline for a few days. If I have understood the point that you and others are making correctly, it is roughly as follows: "The purpose of public relations as a profession is to promote selective and partial interpretations of facts, and this in itself conflicts with the concept of providing a neutral information resource like Wikipedia, which means being someone who promotes PR means you can't also be responsible for promoting Wikipedia". Please correct me if I haven't grasped that correctly.

The reasons why I personally disagree with that view are several, both philosophical and practical. On a philosophical level, it's worth pointing out that selective and biased information resources have always co-existed with those that aim at neutrality, truth, balance or something else, and the promotion of the one does not necessarily mean the rejection of the other. It would be pretty rubbish to have encyclopedia articles that had the content of press releases, and also pretty rubbish to have press releases that had the content of encyclopedia articles. But the existence of the press release doesn't mean there is no need for the encyclopedia, or vice versa.

On a more mundane level I also think it's not that unusual to find people who in their professional lives have the responsibility to communicate in their employer's interests. For instance, I'm a fundraiser - if you read any fundraising letters I produce at work, you will find that they present the causes I work for in the best possible light to encourage people to make donations. We also have lawyers on the Board, and lawyers at work have a professional responsibility to present their client's case as effectively as possible (within the bounds of law and professional ethics, of course). I do not think there is a big gap between the positions of lawyer or fundraiser and that of public relations person. Indeed, we and other entities in the Wikimedia movement have had Board members who have worked in public relations one way or another in the past.

This is why I believe this question is a practical one of "how might these positions conflict and would it be possible to handle it if they do". One area which would make it impossible for Alastair to continue would be if the CIPR had public views which were opposed to Wikimedia UK's views or values. Fortunately on the most important of these areas - how PR people should treat Wikipedia - the CIPR has a firm position saying "follow Wikipedia policies" and regards it as unethical to do otherwise. Of course there are other potential problems and it is those we are looking at.

I hope this makes sense, and if I haven't got your point correctly, please let me know. I don't think the situation is an obvious one. I hope that we'll reach a position where either we are being very clear about how we'll handle any prospective conflict that might arise, which will give reassurance to people who (like you) are worried about the situation - however, it's also possible that potential conflicts are too serious and too likely for Alastair to continue as a Trustee, in which case we'll have made that decision in the right way. The Land (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You argue above, if I understand your position correctly, that true impartiality is impossible so we should just manage the risk through a complicated set of rules to avoid problems on a case by case basis. The point others are making is that the situation is inherently unmanageable. How can we, Alastair or CIPR be sure that decisions taken in one venue or the other are not going to adversely effect a client of a CIPR member or one of our projects? As has been said, the range of possible scenarios is simply too great and we do not have complete knowledge of the interests of every client of a CIPR member and which particular version of the truth they may be seeking to promote at any given time. Unlike a lawyer or fundraiser who might have a particular client about whom conflicts may be fairly readily identified, and for whom Wikipedia is probably a fairly minor concern, the PR industry is a business whose stock in trade is the manipulation of the truth and which has a track record of acting against us. We are rightly wary of them. If he takes up the job, Alastair will have a duty to promote the interests of people we have good reason not to trust. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to have another look at the piece Jane Wilson wrote for "Huffinton Post Tech UK" back in May last year: PR: If You Want to Understand Wikipedia, Become a Wikipedian. She concludes with the reflection "The first step is always the most difficult, but is also the most important." I am afraid I cannot agree with her. Perhaps she did not imagine a "scenario" where someone slipping into her shoes as CIPR CEO would also feel comfortable continuing as a Wikimedia UK Trustee. (She wrote this piece in her capacity as CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.) It is not a matter of there being a "potential" Conflict of Interest, Alastair is stepping into a key role in an organisation which already has a distinct interest in relation to Wikimedia UK. Please also note that WMUK employees from time to time have meetings with CIPR (such as this). Now I find myself in a tricky situation as regards chasing up Stevie as regards what happened at that meeting. Leutha (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of the assumptions are interesting:

• "the question of the most appropriate way to engage with audiences through Wikipedia" We are not here for this purpose.
• "If Wikipedia is an element in your online reputation management strategy" Nor this.
• "Wikipedians and ethically minded public relations professionals share similar goals -providing accurate, factual, and up-to-date information" We may share those goals but they don't share our additional goals of neutrality, impartiality and avoiding advocacy, quite the opposite in fact. When was the last time a PR firm put anything in the public domain that might reflect poorly on one of their customers?

Mutual understanding? Dialogue? Codes of conduct? All yes. Good friends who share our values? No. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm keeping out of this debate as it's important that it takes place within the community. I do, however, want to respond to Leutha's comment above. Leutha, I'm not sure why you find yourself in a "tricky situation as regards chasing up Stevie". You, and anyone else within our community, are always welcome to ask me about my work. The meeting you point to, I remember very well actually. Checking my diary, it was on Friday 15 March. I met with Gemma Griffiths, a member of the CIPR's social media panel (who also has her own PR agency). We met at Shoreditch Grind for coffee (which I remember came in a glass the size of a thimble and was expensive and lukewarm - but I guess that's Shoreditch for you). We spoke about the potential for doing an updated version of the guidelines that you link to. We both felt that it would be a useful exercise but that it wasn't a priority for either of us or our organisations. The intention was to float the idea with both our communities over the summer but this hasn't happened because a) everyone is busy and b) there isn't an urgent need. You may also be interested to know that I visited the CIPR offices in Russell Square on the previous Thursday (8 March) along with Dirk Franke from WMDE who was visiting our office with some colleagues. While there we met with Gemma, Andy Ross of the CIPR and another CIPR officer, whose name escapes me (could be Francis Ingham). There were two reasons for my visit. Firstly, it made sense for someone to take Dirk along as London is a confusing city for visitors and it's easy to get lost. Secondly, I wanted to learn about Dirk's research into paid editing on the German Wikipedia. He was already scheduled to speak with CIPR about this so I went along to learn about it. It's very interesting and I'm looking forward to reading his report when it is ready. I hope this helps and please, don't think of asking me about my work as a tricky situation. I'm quite approachable and don't usually bite so please feel free to ask me. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am sorry if it appeared I was suggesting that Stevie is anyway unapproachable. The trickiness of the situation was basically as Stevie put it, he's trying to keep out of this debate. By the way, thanks for the info (I have something not directly related to this discussion to take up with Dirk.) Leutha (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Leutha. I appreciate your comment and I apologise for not updating that page at the time. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

May we have an update from the board and Alistair regarding what action, if any, is taking place on this matter with some dates? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Philafrenzy: I think the draft minutes now up at Minutes 14Sep13#AM potential CoI should answer your question. I'm not sure we have dates yet as Chris is on holiday this week, but I know it's being worked on. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit break

The Board minutes were clear enough, though the board seems to have an odd view of the discussion on this page as the minutes make it sound like this thread is a resounding success for Alastair, when it looks pretty ghastly from where I am sitting. I would like to see Alastair reply to my request above, and consider the statement from Jimmy Wales, for him to do the right thing and step down as a trustee, after failing to manage a declaration in a timely or appropriate manner either with the members of the charity, or the board of trustees, rather than having replies through second parties or leaving the members to deduce what might have been said from carefully worded reports of closed meetings long after the fact. Had the members been told before voting at the AGM that one of the candidates was planning to soon become a paid advocate of the PR industry, there is no doubt that Alastair and the charity would not be in the current situation. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the minutes sound a bit rosier than this discussion (although I perhaps think the consensus here is less "ghastly" than you do). I'm also not certain the the claim "Had the members been told before voting at the AGM that one of the candidates was planning to soon become a paid advocate of the PR industry, there is no doubt that Alastair and the charity would not be in the current situation" is obviously true, and I think you're implying some bad faith on timing here, which I think has been refuted above. As for the J'Wales comment while I think that view should be taken into consideration, it'd be a bit weird if we start deferring to Jimmy Wales on every disagreement...and there's far more discussion going on here than there was on that post (unless there's another section I've missed). Not sure what I think of this potential COI, but I think new points would be more useful than returning to these ones again Sjgknight (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of timing, Alastair, nor any other member of the board, has yet confirmed in writing exactly when he first informed the board about accepting the job. I believe the board was only told after this became an issue on Wikipediocracy, a couple of weeks after CIPR put out a press release. If this is the case, then timing is a problem, as Alastair had several months in advance of this to informally approach his fellow trustees about a potential conflict of loyalties, or openly advise the members about these events, but chose to act and update his declaration of interests when it was too late for the members to use the information to influence their votes and only after the press already had a version of events and the board of trustees were in a position of reacting to events and attempting to quench the exposure rather than planning and seeking advice on a potential risk. Conflict of Interest Policy states "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests", there is no doubt that CIPR knew about his position as a trustee of WMUK when deciding whether to appoint Alastair and CIPR were fully aware of their effective partnership with WMUK even if Alastair was not, as they had worked closely with the charity on guidelines for Wikipedia and even presented at our 2012 AGM. I would expect Alastair included his position as trustee in his portfolio and would have discussed it during interviews, it's up to Alastair if he wants to set the record straight and make a full explanation to the members about how and at what point his position as trustee became relevant to his new job. The same policy states "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made", this did not happen. If you contrast this with Roger Bamkin's behaviour, the board was informed about a potential contract well in advance and I had time on behalf of the board to seek independent advice which we fully followed. If you contrast with the press interest in me, I reviewed this potential risk with the board months before it became a public problem. I do not see the board responding more openly now, or in a more timely fashion, than we did with those events, in fact the process followed today seems less effective by only reacting to events and is being controlled by the Chair who has stated here that he sees no problem and has only acted after repeated complaints from members, a situation that I would expect the board to pick up on, and put someone with an independent viewpoint in charge of a COI review.

With regard to Jimmy Wales, the board has no duty to ignore his comments, and I used the word "consider", not expecting to just do whatever Jimmy Wales says blindly. At the moment neither Alastair nor the board has responded directly to Jimmy Wales' statement as far as I can tell. --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Alastair has provided a full statement

Hello everyone. I'd like to draw your attention to a full statement that Alastair has written on managing potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of his paid employment. This can be seen here. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I thank Alastair for the amount of effort that has gone into the preparation of this statement which would be more than adequate in any normal conflict of interest situation. What stands out for me is the number of different scenarios, the double negatives, the recusing and non-recusing. This complicated document is symptomatic of the legalistic and managerial approach that has been taken to this matter, with an attempt to break it down into a number of smaller problems and to design a solution for each one, thus minimising its significance and avoiding the need to face the more difficult questions of principle. At point two particularly there seems to be an argument that because we have the agreed editing guidelines there is no fundamental conflict of values between the PR industry and Wikimedia or conflict of loyalty between Alastair and Wikimedia. This is incorrect in my view for reasons already given.

We can see where the higher loyalty will lie, with multiple scenarios outlined where Alastair will resign here but, tellingly, none where he will resign from CIPR. It is clear that when push comes to shove it is the CIPR that will come first. Does anyone expect Alastair to resign from CIPR on a matter of principle involving Wikipedia? This tells us something about the uneven nature of the arrangements. I don’t believe that Alastair’s statement addresses the fundamental conflict of values between the PR industry and our movement. Some conflicts are so deep that they cannot be dealt with through carefully worded legal statements, this is one of them. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

+1, I agree with Philafrenzy's point of view. The risks are all one way, for WMUK rather than CIPR, the charity requires trustees to put the interests of the charity first, not barter interests between their conflicts of loyalties. Rather than a full statement, this appears an over complex, hypothetical and inadequate one. The facts we have established on this page are:

1. Alastair failed to declare his conflict of loyalties to either the board or the membership until immediately after a public fuss about it was made on Wikipediocracy. Alastair knew about this conflict of loyalties before running to be a trustee at the AGM, he failed to discuss it with the board of trustees then or declare it so that members voting had the full facts.
2. Neither Alastair nor any board member has confirmed the precise date on which he made a declaration to the board. This fails to follow the agreed WMUK policy with regard to conflict of interest. This would be a simple statement of fact, that it has been skirted over appears a failure of the board to comply with the value of openness.
3. Alastair has responded once to questions here from members, avoided responding to any further questions and given no response to the statement by Jimmy Wales asking for him to do the right thing, instead he has preferred to work through Chris and Stevie. It is notable that Alastair's long statement says nothing about his accountability to the members that voted for him and gives no assurance that he will be accountable to the members in the future.
4. The board has failed to comply with their own published process for management of conflict of interest. The board failed to ensure an independent review occurred before reaching a decision, and has failed to ensure a process for managing Alastair's active conflict of interest is in place, instead accepting that he makes a long hypothetical statement. Chris and Alastair agreeing a statement is not an independent review, when Chris stated his final position before any discussion started.

As has been pointed out previously in this discussion, Alastair's conflict of loyalties appears unmanageable, failing to establish a process to attempt to manage it or independently review it, apart from "parking" it by saying it will be mentioned in the general governance review, long after entrenching views and the trustees have fully committed themselves to one option, gives the impression that the board is acting to quickly bury this problem and putting PR spin first, rather than taking on board the valid concerns and questions of members and the founder of the WMF - the organization that directly controls almost all future funds of the charity. --Fæ (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure there is much more to say except that the Board takes a different view, and I'm not sure another statement of the rationale is going to help. However I do think I ought to address Fae's post as there are a number of factual inaccuracies.

Regarding your point 1). This is not the case.

Given Alastair's extensive engagement on this page, I don't think it is fair to say he's failing to take the issue seriously, or not discussing with members.

Your statement that we have failed to follow the Wikimedia UK policy with regards to disclosing his new job is untrue. Please see Conflict_of_Interest_Policy#Disclosure. The policy states that interests should be raised and discussed early, and then the Board should decide on how they are to be handled, which has happened. There is no requirement for prospective Trustees to disclose to us any prospective job they are applying for, particularly one so tangentially related to the Wikimedia movement. And while there is no requirement in the policy for the handling of any conflict of interest to be independently reviewed, in handling this we have taken advice from Rosie Chapman, the consultant performing our current governance audit, and we have asked her to comment on our handling of this situation in her report.

Regards, The Land (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris. If my point (1) is not the case, could you, Alastair or another member of the board give a precise date on which Alastair put his conflict of loyalties to the board of trustees for the first time, so that the members can confirm that this date was indeed before it was raised on Wikipediocracy? I am sure that Andreas can compare dates for us. I find it extremely odd for this date to be kept obscure when it is as easy to confirm as a trustee checking the date of the first email from Alastair to the board about his relationship with CIPR.

With regard to policy it states "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made." Alastair made his decision to become the CEO for CIPR without consulting with the board, as far as I am aware. There was a press announcement by CIPR before anything was put in writing, or discussed, with the WMUK charity. I note your partial responses have tacitly accepted the other issues as correct.

As for Alastair being an advocate for CIPR, when CIPR has publicly worked closely with WMUK for more than a year previously, I find it surprising that anyone would dismiss that as "tangential". It is not tangential, it is bang centre of the COI policy as an issue of having an active PR lobbyist brokering the values and mission of this charity. The policy states "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in" I believe it is a perfectly common sense reading of a "private interest" that having Trustee of WMUK on your CV when applying to be CEO of CIPR, an existing collaborator with WMUK, is indeed advancing a private interest that requires discussion.

Why is it you that is writing here as an apparent official proxy, to address questions put to Alastair, rather than Alastair? Are trustees no longer supposed to discuss problems with members without going through the Chair? This seems an approach that runs directly counter to the Nolan principles included in the Trustee Code of Conduct, in particular "[Trustees] should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands."

Lastly, you mention "we have taken advice from Rosie Chapman", please publish this advice. I am sure the charity paid well for it and it would be great for the members to consider it and learn from it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I too am finding the relative absence of Alastair here puzzling. Even his statement was posted by someone else. I note there has been some interaction here but it seems to be principally via intermediaries and there is a lofty detached tone that suggests that Alastair feels that he is an important man above all this annoying nonsense from the trouble makers on that Watercooler thingy. This does very much play into the feeling that the trustees don't actually get much involved in the nitty gritty of our work and that has been said above in defence of these arrangements. I note particularly that one does not often see the trustees at the London meetup. I know not everyone is in London but there is nothing like those meetings for taking the temperature of the community and understanding who we really are. I hope also that we will start to see Fae at those events as he also has been absent. I hope that Alastair will correct me and give us some sort of personal statement that faces head on the worries that people have, rather than relying on documents draw up by committees, boards and lawyers.

Regarding Chris's assertion that this appointment is "tangentially related to the Wikimedia movement", this is a troubling and factually incorrect statement to say the least. The PR industry exists solely for the job of "influencing opinion and behaviour" (their words) for the benefit of their paying clients. Information and its use is their currency. How can that not be a concern to us? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am intending to be at the next London meetup - see m:Meetup/London/74 --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in on this thread Michael, it would be interesting to touch base at the wikimeet on some Commons projects, I've added it to my diary. While you are here, it would be great if you could confirm the date of the first email from Alastair bringing up the issue of his relationship with CIPR as a potential conflict of loyalties. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae. I have been responding here because it falls to the Chair to deal with Trustees' conflicts of interests, and with allegations like the ones you are making that the charity has failed to comply with its policies. Alastair spent a great deal of time at the start of this conversation responding to peoples' points and nothing new has been added since. Also, you said above that you felt I had "tacitly accepted" some of the things I have said - this couldn't be further from the case. If you make an untrue statement and I fail to disagree with it, it does not mean your statement has suddenly become true.

Philafrenzy - yes, I'm planning to be there - I was in the habit of coming but haven't been for a while. Look forward to seeing you and talking some of this through. The Land (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also great! You have been to dozens more meetups than I have I know. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to write here Chris. I am familiar with the role of Chair having held it myself and discussed it with the board many times before and after that; it certainly was never the duty of the Chair to replace the voice of other trustees, nor to take a PR role and answer instead of others when the members have direct questions for a trustee that is not the Chair. By the way, calling my statements "untrue" does not make your assertions that there is nothing to worry about here and policy has been followed "true". Alastair was offered a job with CIPR after becoming a WMUK trustee, that appears to be a personal benefit. Alastair failed to come forward and discuss his potential conflict of loyalties before the AGM, despite CIPR being fully aware of their long term relationship with WMUK. As for the order of events, the members have no idea, as neither Alastair nor anyone else on the board has explained who knew what when.

It is easy for any reader to see that your answers are selective. If you don't wish them to be seen that way, perhaps you would be prepared to answer a very simple question that I have asked around 4 or 5 times now but has been skirted around every time. What was the date of the first email to the board from Alastair bringing up the issue of his relationship with CIPR as a potential conflict of loyalties? --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, will someone please just answer this question and put us all out of our misery. What possible reason can there be for not providing this factual piece of information? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a closed question, which could have been answered at any time by any trustee cut & pasting the date from an email, it does not take hours to write a reply, let alone days or weeks. It would be refreshing if a response just gave a date.

In terms of a comparative timeline, Alastair was running for the CIPR job before the AGM and he became a WMUK trustee on 8 June 2013, CIPR made a public announcement of Alastair's new job on 27 August 2013, the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013 and in apparent response, Alastair decided to declare his conflict of loyalties the day afterwards[1] 11 September 2013. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

28 August. I hope that settles the matter. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. 24 August. There we go. The Land (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a good quote from Jimmy Wales on page 172 of the book Share This Too: More Social Media Solutions for PR Professionals (ISBN 1118676939) issued by CIPR and referred to elsewhere here. "What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that is what paid advocates do." (my italics) Quite. Our Secretary, apparently, is to be their leader. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Geoff Brigham

Hi all. As General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I have followed with interest the efforts of WMUK to address a number of outstanding governance issues over the last months. See http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/19/movement-governance-recommendations/ If I may, I would like to share some of my own thoughts here in light of this ongoing discussion and concerns about a possible conflict of interest.

I have been favorably impressed by WMUK’s recent leadership in seeking to address outstanding governance issues and solving past issues, including the recruitment of strong Board members with rich experiences and talents. I appreciate the opinion of others on the handling of this and other potential conflicts; that said, I personally feel that the chapter is taking the right steps in addressing the necessary legal requirements of managing this potential conflict.

The first rule of thumb to managing a conflict of interest is to declare it timely, completely, directly, and transparently to the parties affected, including the decision-makers, which I feel was done here. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

The second rule is to put in place a protocol for managing the declared potential conflict. Such a protocol rarely requires resignation as a solution when Wikimedia interests can be addressed by removing the declarant from discussions and decisions on the matter where the potential conflict could arise. On this last point, WMUK sought, received, and followed advice from a leading UK governance expert on the topic; its Chair and Executive Director reached out to me early for my thoughts given our working relationship and my past experience on these types of ethical questions; and, in layperson’s language, Alastair issued a comprehensive, transparent statement, which, in my mind, addresses the legalities satisfactorily. To be sure, there is always a possibility that scenarios may change, and such unanticipated changes may require a course adjustment in the management of the potential conflict; for that reason, ongoing vigilance to ensure against any future conflict is appropriate by both Alastair and the Board. This is the nature of any legal potential conflict of interest, however.

To manage duty of loyalty cases, I have always subscribed to a somewhat conservative double recusal rule that applies to both organizations. In this case, if a substantive issue arises at CIPR with respect to Wikimedia or its projects, I understand that Alastair intends to recuse himself from discussion and decision and appoint someone else at CIPR to act as the final decision maker on that issue within CIPR to avoid any appearance of a conflict of duty of loyalty. Alastair would also recuse himself on the WMUK board from a discussion and decision on any issue concerning CIPR. If an issue is particularly contentious and critical to the very fabric of either organization, Alastair may need to make a decision of resignation to address the potential conflict on that question, but such decisions can be handled on an issue-by-issue basis. The mere possibility of such a scenario does not necessitate resignation today.

Of course, as General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I cannot give legal advice outside the Wikimedia Foundation, so the above represents only my view, not advice. Indeed, WMUK has sought outside advice from its own ethics expert in the U.K., who has a better understanding of UK governance than I (obviously). Also, to be clear, I am not addressing the broader extra-legal policy issues of paid editing, which I understand could be a subject to debate. My focus is getting the more narrow legalities correct.

In short, I have expressed my discontentment in the past when conflicts of interests have been undisclosed or mismanaged; at the same time, I believe we should also recognize when they are handled well, despite challenging circumstances. It is a tough job handling these issues professionally, and I commend the chapter and Alastair for their efforts to do so here.

Geoff Brigham (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know that the chapter has taken the correct legal steps in this matter, however, Geoff's opinion does not directly address the question of the appropriateness of the head of the UK's professional body for public relations also being the Secretary and Trustee of Wikimedia UK. It may be legal for that to happen but is it right? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental conflict of values/Conflicts of loyalty?

Thanks to Alastair for working on his statement. However, I feel it only serves to illustrate that there is a Fundamental conflict of values/Conflicts of loyalty.:

"For the present CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers have agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners on how to interact with Wikipedia, which states essentially that PR practitioners should not edit articles for their clients and should always follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines."

Now I realise that Alastair may not be particularly familiar with what went on, and it would be interesting to know whether he was advised on this by

1. the people at CIPR
2. Wikimedians who participated in the discussion

Certainly he did not contact me for my view on it. Indeed there is a bit of Catch 22 here, because as far as I am aware this is the first time that someone, whether a member of staff or a fellow trustee, has referred to an agreement between CIPR and "Wikimedia Volunteers". On the one hand it would be a serious omission if this was not included, but on the other this is precisely the sort of announcement in which Alastair should not be involved. Indeed the Catch 22 is precisely indicative of a fundamental conflict! Certainly if he had checked the documents he would have found that I contributed to the document, only to have something removed without discussion by Philip Sheldrake. Please check Draft best practice guidelines for PR

1. These are a draft.
2. There was never any "agreement" as far I was concerned. Now I may be wrong, and certainly checking for one is the sort of thing that Alastair can do once he takes up his position as CEO of CIPR, and if it does exist I would certainly like to know how it came about.
3. On May 31st we were informed that the CIPR planned to create a Version 1
4. This was carried out on 27 June 2012, when Philip Sheldrake also suggested that there should be a "Version 2". CIPR issued a press statement, which quite understandably included a quote from the CIPR CEO (as well as Jon). Nowhere was there any reference to any agreement in this press statement. The statement also stated unequivocally:

Furthermore, the guidance document published today is merely version one – it will continue to be reviewed and refreshed as the relationship between the Wikipedia and public relations communities continues to progress."

It is hard to see how this sits comfortably with Alastair's statement.

1. Alastair also makes reference to Share this too, a book recently published by the CIPR, with a chapter by Stephen Waddington, President of the CIPR. Now, I have no problem with The CIPR publishing their views about Wikipedia, and it would be churlish to accuse Alastair of promoting a CIPR publication, (even though by including it in his statement he inevitably is - I doubt if I would have heard of the book otherwise). But this again underlines the problem that we have here an ongoing relationship
2. Alastair accepts that he "must be mindful of the fact that if, in future, CIPR and Wikimedia no longer agree on matters which relate to Wikipedia", but what does that mean: Wikimedia UK, the Wikmedia community - two quite different entities, one a legal defined corporation, the other something much more nebulous.
3. Alastair goes on to say "If I become aware that CIPR is seeking to modify the guidelines I would need to make the WMUK Board aware of this and take no part in any following discussion." In this he seems to be unaware of the CIPR view that:

1. CIPR view Draft best practice guidelines for PR as a living document.
2. CIPR would like to see a more concise document for Version 2

He also seems unaware that:

1. Changes have in fact been made since Version 1
2. By a curious irony the very last line states: "This introduction (everything to this point) will not feature in the guidance; everything hereafter will."

1. As I touched on previously, there was a meeting to follow as regards Version 2, about which I felt uncomfortable prompting an update from Stevie in the context of this debate. Stevie reported that there had been an idea of seeing whether there was any interest in working on a Version 2, over the summer, but that in the end neither organisation regarded it as a priority.

So to summarise my view: I do not wish to pillory Alastair, and I have no doubt that he could make a very helpful contribution to WMUK, and Wikipedia and its sister projects, however for the reason above, I do not understand why he sees no conflict of loyalty between his role as CEO (a less significant role might have been more manageable) of CIPR and that of a WMUK trustee. I feel he has been more naive than anything else in this matter. For the reasons I have argued above, I do not think he properly understands how the relationship between CIPR and WMUK has developed, and his suggestion that there is any sort of agreement is incorrect. And, er yes, I have got better things to do than spend hours clarifying the situation as I have done this evening. After I engaged with the CIPR people on this, I came away feeling very dissatisfied, with little respect for them, and perhaps a little more understanding of persuasion actually works. I do find Alastair's suggestion that I have agreed to the CIPR guidelines problematic and I do not understand why those of us who had troubled ourselves to contribute to the draft were not consulted before he issued his statement? Leutha (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

By whose authority were these guidelines "agreed" if indeed they are agreed at all? I was not aware that WMUK had the authority to do such things. Certainly they can be of no binding effect as far as Wikipedia or the Foundation are concerned. Whilst guidelines are welcome, I am not sure that WMUK should be the ones writing them. We certainly seem to be being used by CIPR as a proxy for the community as a whole. Would these guidelines have been agreed if they had been put forward for community agreement on a wider basis? There is considerable dissent on the talk page here alone. Who decided the matter was settled? If these guidelines have some official status as far as WMUK are concerned, then the least that should happen is that WMUK members should vote on them. Should an EGM result from the other matter, I think the WMUK community should have a chance to vote on these guidelines too. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This may be old news but this US PR firm claims to be able to manage their customer's Wikipedia page through "our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins". Philafrenzy (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How much do they pay, maybe we should put our names down at $400/day?^† Considering that WMUK already acts as a certification body for consultants for hire rather than factoring these services out, the realpolitik approach the charity has adopted towards the PR sector by having a paid advocate of the PR industry as a voting trustee would seem to set a trend that the board would have no problem in officially supporting this sort of paid work, or even having this organization as an approved commercial partner. Anything else would seem contradictory, wouldn't it?

Perhaps it is time for the board of trustees to re-write the mission. --Fæ (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

†—I have dropped WIKI-PR an email to find out more. By the way, I was offered money to sort out a biography on en.wp through my work on OTRS. Maybe I was being stupid to turn down the offer. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking site. Though, as has been pointed out many times, CIPR's position is that anyone working in PR should avoid anyone using the "dark arts", avoid doing any of the things that site claims to offer, and follow Wikipedia policies regarding not engaging in COI editing. So I am still not particularly clear of its relevance to this situation. The Land (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I am not suggesting that is happening here, and CIPR do reject that sort of thing but it is a reminder of the broader context. Let's not get too cosy with the PR industry please. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I suggest that as the Chairman of the charity, you avoid defaming WIKI-PR on public record unless you have specific evidence to support your allegations of "dark arts". You should be particularly careful that WMUK might be seen to be only critical of non-members of CIPR considering that the board has a trustee that is a paid advocate of members of CIPR. The WIKI-PR site states extremely clearly that "We respect the community and its rules against promoting and advertising." If you feel that it is the charity's business to create an official list of approved PR suppliers, rather than just your public allegations about who is good and bad, maybe you should make a proposal.

Philafrenzy, I cannot imagine WMUK getting any more "cosy" with the PR industry than having a paid advocate as a trustee with a legal role as the Secretary of the charity. If we have a paid advocate as a trustee, there seems little reason any more to disapprove of having paid advocates as volunteers for the charity. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fae the "dark arts" comment was re: CIPR's position, not Wiki-PR (being shocked isn't defamation), much as that bait and switch made me lol. CIPR is also different to single PR organisations, in that it's an overarching body and taking a rather different tact to wikipedia to (the American) Wiki-PR. You say "I cannot imagine WMUK getting any more 'cosy' with the PR industry"...and then go on to give an example of how that could happen. Alastair's status has been discussed, COI managed, let's discuss separate issues separately... Sjgknight (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misreading. Chris Keating speaking as the Chairman of the charity has said that he finds WIKI-PR "shocking". I think it would now be proper for that to be expanded so that the members understand the difference between WIKI-PR and other PR companies, in particular so that we can contrast with the sites and behaviour of the members of CIPR that Alastair McCapra is paid to be an advocate for, whilst also being the Secretary of the WMUK charity. For those volunteers for WMUK that would like to get paid for their editing time, it would be great if Chris could point out some paid editing sites that he does not find "shocking" and that are going about this the "right" way, presumably by following the guidelines that WMUK and its members has officially agreed with CIPR in the past. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. The Land (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And you are claiming that WIKI-PR is "shocking" but now prefer to call me a troll rather than explaining why so that the members of WMUK can apply the same standard to other PR agencies in a fair and even-handed way, in particular the charity must be seen to be apply the same standards when we approve or disapprove of the behaviour of members of CIPR. If I get an email back from WIKI-PR, I'll send them a link to your comment here. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR Sjgknight (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Sjgknight, though as WIKI-PR upfront (on its main page) says it complies with the policy, there seems no reason to suspect it would not be happy to comply with the best practice guidelines that WMUK agreed with CIPR. In what way is WIKI-PR shocking if this is the case? --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for some context regarding Wiki-PR, if you haven't already seen it; Signpost coverage. The Land (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also see Water_cooler#Wiki_PR_update below for link to Daily Dot article.Leutha (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

All sides of the debate are inviting more members of WMUK to speak up, so I'm taking that invitation. I say "all sides" not "both sides", because there are actually two sides of this discussion offering contradictory reasons on why Alastair can't handle his COI:

1. Some argue that WMUK and CIPR have a "fundamental conflict of values";
2. Others argue that Alastair has a personal conflict of interest arising from the working relationship between WMUK and CIPR.

These can't both be true, and in my opinion the first one is false. As Philafrenzy illustrated, "the Vegetarian Association and the National Beef Association" have a fundamental conflict of values because vegetarians fundamentally don't do beef. In contrast, there's nothing in WMUK's vision that says we don't work with the PR. If there was a fundamental conflict of interest, "CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers" would have never "agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners on how to interact with Wikipedia".

That's pretty definitive proof to me that there isn't a "fundamental conflict of values", so it boils down to how Alastair should handle his own conflict of interest. As pointed out earlier in this long discussion, WMUK does not fund CIPR in any way, so there is no financial COI for Alastair. This makes Alastair's COI between WMUK and CIPR nothing more than any other COI - as Mike Peel illustrated, we all have involvements beyond Wikimedia in other walks of society and each of them is both a perspective to be welcomed and a COI to be managed. If we as WMUK choose to single out Alastair and CIPR, we're simply shooting ourselves in the foot. I commend Alastair for declaring his forthcoming job well in advance, I agree that no further special action is required other than Alastair's expected standard of "double recusal" (thanks Geoff) so long as he holds both WMUK and CIPR executive positions, and I hope that we'll stop being paranoid about our trustees' lives outside Wikimedia. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we have the so called agreed guidelines proves nothing of the kind Deryck. You hang an awful lot in your argument on something that is not even agreed by WMUK members, has never been ratified in any way by the community, and has no standing of any kind on Wikipedia or with the Foundation. The fundamental conflict of values is the fact that in our work we seek neutrality, impartiality and to avoid advocacy, while the PR industry exists specifically for the contrary purpose of manipulating public opinion to the benefit of their paying customers. Please explain how those things are not in conflict. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Need for an EGM

It is pretty clear that many in the community find the statement about managing Alastair's COI woefully inadequate. It also appears that the board doesn't understand the concerns of the community. I think we need an extraordinary general meeting. Yaris678 (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it focuses on issues not individuals. I feel that a motion should be put that "It is incompatible with our principles for a senior figure in the public relations industry to also be an employee or trustee of Wikimedia U.K." or something along those lines to be agreed. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If it becomes clear that there is a strong opinion from our members (or the wider community) that we've got this wrong, then there won't be a need for an EGM. But, as I just posted on the email list - since Alastair posted the details of how he will handle this situation, only 5 people (myself included) have taken part in the resulting discussion. Some have posted at some length and in strident terms, but I don't yet see the picture I would need to see to be persuaded we are taking the wrong course of action here.

This time last year we had a very clear message from our membership, from the broader community, and from the Wikimedia Foundation that we needed to greatly improve how we handled conflicts of interest. That resulted in the Hudson Review, which gave us some pretty clear recommendations. We have followed those recommendations in dealing with this situation - taking external advice early, thinking carefully about the likely impact of the potential conflict of interest, and coming to a conclusion which the Board believes defends us not just against the risk of anything bad happening, but any allegation of impropriety. In short we have been to the best of our ability doing good governance. You might see Geoff Brigham's comments above if you were in any doubt about that.

However, we also clearly have a duty to our members, and a responsibility to maintain the goodwill of the Wikimedia community as a whole. If there is a widespread view that, even with the steps we've outlined, it's not in the charity's best interests for Alastair to continue, then we will listen to that. So if there are a lot of people out there thinking to themselves that the Board has got this wrong, but haven't summoned the time or energy to post to that effect, please do post and let us know your views. Equally, if there are people who have been watching this conversation and haven't participated because they feel the right decision's been made and so they have nothing to add, please do speak up. Regards, The Land (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comments elsewhere about the democratic deficit here, caused by the active membership being too small, leading to difficulty all round in determining the views of the community. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a particular view on whether an EGM is or isn't needed (I don't have much time to consider the matter). But as a gut/largely uninformed reaction, assuming Fae is correct to suggest that Alastair was running for the CIPR position before the AGM (apologies if this has been rebutted somewhere, I haven't been able to read everything), I find it disappointing that the process we had in place at the AGM did not bring this to members' attention at the time, given how much we talked a lot about COI there. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have contributed before here, and was going to leave it at that. I thought Alistair's statement above could have been stronger. If this thread still has life in it, I have a few comments from Wikipedia experience. Namely: (a) there will certainly be those who see process as the dominant factor, but they tend to be on the wrong side of arguments; (b) I was (for once) heavily involved in WP policy when it came to the COI guideline, and there the whole point is that "potential COI" should be distinguished from what happens in practice - which leads me to back the Board's approach; (c) the argumentum ad Jimbonen here, which has been brought up, brings nothing new to the discussion on PR for those who have been paying attention - Jimmy Wales is our "tough cop" in this area, for good reasons from past history, but stringency isn't the only approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Charles, I'm not sure what you are saying here. You caution against seeing process as the dominant factor, and yet you appear to be supporting the boards current position, a position based on process, a position that neglects factors like trust, community and simplicity and instead gives us an unconvincing description of how hypothetical future problems will be dealt with. Yaris678 (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I lived through what could reasonably be called the "scandal-torn" era of the English Wikipedia. Some such scandals were caused (I'm thinking of Essjay, in particular) by "trusted" people being not what they seemed. Some reasonable precautions were the answer there, not more reliance on criteria about whom to trust. You can call reasonable precautions "process" if you want, but my point is an old one, as far as I'm concerned: wonkishness about process isn't the answer. I mean by that privileging form over content. Community concerns should be met, and a sense of history does matter to the movement as a whole. Here we are, hoping for the end of the "scandal-torn" era of WMUK. The basic argument against the Board seems to be that to over-correct is the only safe way, and advocacy for it picking holes in what has been done so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The basic argument against the Board seems to be that to over-correct is the only safe way, and advocacy for it picking holes in what has been done so far. I am not quite able to parse the second half of your sentence. What does "it" in "advocacy for it" refer to? Do you mean that advocacy for over-correction means picking holes in what has been done so far? And if so, do you mean to say doing so is a good thing or a bad thing? Andreas JN 18:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Response from Alastair

Hi sorry for not contributing for a while but I've had login problems following the migration of the site.

Fae opened this discussion on 11 September by asking that I make a statement about how I think I would manage the potential conflict of interest and I have done this. He also asked that there be an independent review of the conflict of interest. This matter has been considered by the WMUK independent governance advisor, who will be publishing her report in due course.

There was a question of why I did not declare a potential declaration of interest when I stood for election, which I believed I had addressed in my comments on 12 September but evidently not in sufficient detail. At the time I stood for election I had not even been interviewed for the job, and was unaware of the potential conflict I would have to deal with. I certainly did not conceal anything from the members who were considering voting for me and am quite sure that nothing I have done as a trustee since being elected has fallen short of what voting members properly expect.

I only became aware of the issues which have caused concern on this forum after I was appointed to the job. I then discussed the matter with Chris as Chair, and disclosed the potential conflict to the Board on 24 August. It was understood that I would need to think the matter through thoroughly, and prepare a detailed statement for publication on the matter, which I’ve now done.

In my earlier comments I hope I did set out that I understand the serious concerns people have about the PR industry and the way it often interacts with Wikipedia and I certainly have not tried to minimise or downplay that. I have however tried to make the point that my future role at CIPR is not to represent or to advocate for those behaviours. I’ve also made clear my own personal view on bad editing and corrupting the encyclopedia.

The view has been expressed that the approach I have taken to handing this is excessively legalistic or managerial and that this approach avoids something fundamental. The approach I’ve taken is exactly the approach required by the Charity Commission and by WMUK’s own policies – to think about how to manage the situation. Some people have expressed the view that there is a fundamental conflict which makes these steps inadequate, and if that is the case then there is nothing that I can I think, say, or do, can make any difference. If that really is the view of a large part of the Wikimedia UK membership or the Wikimedia community then I can't continue as a trustee. Most of the comments here have come from a small number of people however and it would be helpful for me to hear from others too to know whether what is being said here represents a substantial body of opinion..

What this boils down to, I feel, is that I have found myself in an unexpectedly sensitive situation. I believe that have responded to it thoughtfully and responsibly and the opinion of WMF legal counsel, posted here on the water cooler, confirms this. The WMUK Board is satisfied that I have acted properly and that the situation is manageable. The independent governance advisor agrees with this. However, since these views do not coincide with the opinions of those who originally called for me to make a statement and to seek an independent view, they evidently no longer count for anything.

My statement has generated a lot of detailed discussion about the ‘Draft best practice guidelines for PR’ which I have referred to as ‘agreed’. It seems from some of the comments here that I perhaps ought not to have even mentioned them, as the mere mention creates a conflict of interest, so I think that kind of puts a stop on my discussing them any further. I hope it is clear from the context of my statement that I referred to the guidelines, as well as to a couple of other examples, to illustrate that CIPR seeks to promote good behaviour on Wikipedia. In the postings on this topic there have been several references to what individual PR practitioners or firms do, but nobody has yet indicated a statement or action by CIPR itself which is contrary to the values and principles of Wikipedia.

There was a suggestion that I attend a London meetup to understand the community better. I have attended two since being elected and enjoyed them both very much. I also intend to come to the next one. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Breach of CC BY-SA 3.0

My problem is this: in his statement Alastair stated:

“For the present CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers have agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners on how to interact with Wikipedia.”

As one of the volunteers engaged with the discussion around the Draft best practice guidelines for PR, I also contributed to the document itslef, both the version as published by the CIPR, and the version currently on the WMUK website.

The terms of my contribution were the CC BY-SA 3.0 license which says:

“Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)”

Alastair, by his statement has suggested that as one of the volunteers contributing to the work, I endorse its use by CIPR.

When I challenged him on this he has declined to make a further comment.

The chair has also not made any comment on this, despite otherwise being active on the WMUK Wiki over the last few days.

I have what I consider good reasons why I do not want to be seen as endorsing either CIPR or their use of the document. But such reasons are secondary to the issue under debate here.

I take exception to the CEO designate of CIPR, in his capacity as a Trustee of WMUK issuing a statement on the WMUK Wiki stating that some WMUK volunteers – of which I am one – have agreed with CIPR to a set of guidelines when this is not the case.

I regard this not only as a conflict of interest but also a breach of the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

I would like to make a further request to Alastair that he retract his claim or provide evidence to support what he has stated. Leutha (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Without taking a position in this discussion overall, I do want to respond to this comment from Leutha. I was involved in facilitating the discussion that led to those draft guidelines last year. The guidelines received over 200 edits, by the way, so we know there was a decent amount of collaboration. There was also a good amount of discussion, too as the talk page received around 130-150 edits or so. On 24 June last year it was noted here that version one was going to be circulated. It was further noted that the document would be kept open. Now, I think the reason that Alistair may have felt that these were “approved” was probably because he would have got that impression by speaking with me – and I was under the similar impression. I suspect this is entirely down to me and for any confusion here, I apologise. I certainly don't think it's fair to blame Alastair for something which he knew nothing about. However, I note that at this point I had only been in post for three months and was still getting to grips with some of the finer points of the movement. As far as I was concerned I was happy with the guidelines, especially as they had received so much input. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Stevie. Just to make it clear, I am not blaming Alastair, I am saying that what he said in his statement was incorrect. I do not believe he was aware of its consequences. One of the reasons why I have suggested that it is inappropriate for him to maintain both a position as a trustee and as CEO for CIPR is not because I am suggesting that he has any personal short-comings, but because I have insights into the CIPR-WMUK relationship having been involved with the Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR. Nevertheless, his statement did cause the problems which I have outlined above. And I feel these need to be resolved.Leutha (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for WMUK not to be involved in writing "guidelines" (for which read rules) which quite reasonably might be interpreted by the other party as being a community-agreed official policy of Wikipedia or the Foundation, when we can't even agree amongst ourselves. CIPR, for instance, clearly see WMUK as a kind of proxy for the movement as a whole and the presentation of this document in the recent book and elsewhere to me read as "we have negotiated with Wikipedia and done a deal and this is the result". I don't know what authority WMUK had in the first place to issue any sort of guidelines to anyone, surely this can only come from within the Wikipedia community directly? However carefully couched, the true status of such documents is likely to be misunderstood by others. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, I wasn't involved in any writing of guidelines. I simply facilitated the discussion and continued the work started by former Trustee Steve Virgin. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leutha, that's a novel attempt to open a new legalistic line of attack, but your allegation of a breach of CC-BY-SA 3.0 is legally unsustainable. The CC licence provides third parties with permission to do certain things that would otherwise be an infringement of the IP rights (typically copyright) of the author of a 'work'. It does not and cannot provide the author with any new rights over and above those which arise from existing law. Copyright simply restrains third parties from reproducing, distributing and creating adaptations of the work without permission. If none of those things have been done, no rights of the author have been engaged and the CC licence does not come into play at all. Alastair has neither reproduced, distributed nor created adaptations of those parts of the Draft best practice guidelines for PR that derive from your contributions, and his reference to the entirety of the draft guidelines as having been 'agreed' does not as you appear to suggest represent a breach of any of your legal rights. The copyright you hold in your own contributions cannot be used by you to restrain anybody from commenting on them - and that applies whether you agree with the comment or not and even whether the comment is factually correct or not. It is for just that reason that Wikimedia editors who contribute to policy cannot allege any infringement of the copyright in their own contributions when the policy is adopted by the community against their wishes.

It might be helpful for me to comment on CIPR's position as well, to anticipate anyone thinking of following up with a potential switch of your 'breach' allegation from Alastair to CIPR. I am not sure where the purported licence text you quoted above came from, but your wording appears nowhere in the licence itself. What the licence actually says is "You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work". CIPR has certainly reproduced the draft best practice guidelines, but has been careful to comply with the CC licence. CIPR's publication is a paper by them which is addressed to their own members, and there is nothing in it, explicit or implied, that breaches the licence requirement. The document says "Note: These guidelines have been written collaboratively on an open wiki with input from public relations professionals and Wikipedians. The text above and below is a ‘snapshot’ of the content of the wiki at midnight on Sunday 24 June". The acknowledgement that "Wikipedians had input" ("Wikimedians had input" would have been more accurate, admittedly) bears no implication that any particular contributor, such as yourself, agrees with the final result.

Some people have criticized those who support Alastair of being overly legalistic. I make no apology for focusing purely on the legal issues here, as my intent is merely to respond to your specific legal allegation of a breach of licence. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree on non-legal grounds with what Alastair has said, and you have made your views very clear on this page. I entirely respect your right to do that. I will be at the London meetup on Sunday, and would be more than happy to discuss in person: I think you have said you expect to be there too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Michael.

Leutha, your comments about Alastair seem entirely over-stretched. You've made a big deal out of a sentence having "agreed" rather than "contributed to". You've labelled it repeatedly as a breach of a licence and a misunderstanding on Alastair's part, when it's clearly not. In fact, calling for trustees to be educated about this matter is a bit ironic in the circumstances.

Elsewhere on this page you write "I must admit I wonder why Alistair feels it appropriate to [...], when he should be encouraging us to contribute towards Wikipedia and its sister projects." This is another blatant straw man. The discussion about Alastair is happening for (mostly) good reasons. It's not reasonable to ask that he respond to allegations by deflecting the issue. It's reasonable to complain at wastes of volunteer and staff time, but at least direct the complaints to the people making reckless allegations. All I ask is that you take a step back and a deep breath before getting on Alastair's case again. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. However I find it regrettable that you suggest that I am searching for a new legalistic line of attack, when actually I feel I am forced into a position of defending myself from the implications of Alastair's comment.

I have also taken Martin's advice to take a step back before returning to this issue.

• Firstly, I completely agree that in the publication of their booklet the CIPR were quite scrupulous in not stepping over the boundaries. At the time I read the document and the press release] issued last June. However, Alastair's comment goes much further than this:

"For the present CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers have agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners on how to interact with Wikipedia"

Thank your for the link you provided to the full license. My quote was from the human readable summary which you will find by going to the bottom of this page and clicking on the link in "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply" or on the CC Logo.

However, if you look through the full license, it states:

"For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties."

I do not see that it is at all helpful to suggest that I am looking for a "strawman" in all of this. Actually this is touching on a much deeper issue as far as I am concerned. As I mentioned before, I have reasons why I do not want to seen as endorsing CIPR in any way, reasons which do not have a direct relevance to Wikimedia UK, and which I am reluctant to raise here. However I now find myself accused of lacking good faith, because contributors to this discussion do not respect my restraint in not clouding the issue by discussing why I find CIPR so disgusting, and why I find it so problematic that a WMUK Trustee/CIPR CEO-designate should implicitly imply an endorsement by me as one of the WMUK volunteers who engaged in the production and discussion of the Draft best practice guidelines for PR. Bearing in mind that a member of staff has identified how the error arose, I really do not understand why Alastair has not withdrawn that part of his statement, or that the Board has not issued a statement of clarification.

I do not quite understand Martin's point that there is no difference between "agreed" rather than "contributed to". Actually this element of the CC BY SA license is very important to Wiki editors. What it means is that if I contribute to a page on a Biography of a Living Person, I am responsible for my own contribution, but cannot be construed as having agreed to the whole page. This means that in the event of another editor putting up a libelous comment, I am not implicated.

Perhaps Martin would like to clarify his point in the light of this? Leutha (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"CIPR and Wikimedia UK volunteers have agreed a set of guidelines for PR practitioners"

Noting Michael's points on copyright above still leaves Leutha's outstanding question of the status of the guidelines as being not agreed and CIPR's version challenged. Reviewing the documents listed at Wikipedia and PR, resources, CIPR and some individual members of CIPR gained a great deal of non-financial reputational benefit from working with Wikimedia UK, even though Wikimedia UK did not fund CIPR directly.

ACTION: Could the Wikimedia Board of Trustees definitively withdraw these Paid Editing* guidelines or pass a binding resolution that the board of trustees underwrites them? In my view, they give a false impression that it is the business of the Wikimedia UK charity to impose standards on the English Wikipedia and that the Wikimedia UK board of trustees supports this ethical position, rather than being a workshop that would go on to work with the English Wikipedia community (which is not represented by Wikimedia UK trustees). The document has been draft for nearly a year and a half, and CIPR (including Alastair McCapra in both his roles as CIPR CEO and WMUK Secretary) seem under the impression that this can be used as a PR success when they are clearly not. I propose they are now formally withdrawn to avoid any confusion, in the light that it would be unlikely and a massive waste of volunteer time, for Wikimedia UK to attempt to get these guidelines agreed with the English Wikipedia (which is the only project the guidelines address) through a community RFC inside that project. * The term "Paid Editing" was used in the title of the presentation in the 2012 AGM presentation by Philip Sheldrake and Neville Hobson, this is the most accurate term for what these guidelines give a process for achieving by any commercial provider. --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved opinion

I haven't been following the blow-by-blow postings on this issue, but a post on the mailing list from Chris Keating invited comment from those who have not yet done so. I've now read most of what has been posted here, and I'm failing to understand why there is still an issue. Questions were asked and those questions have been answered repeatedly - concisely and expansively.
As I understand it, at the time of the AGM there was the potential for there to be a potential for a potential conflict of loyalties. No policy requires such to be disclosed, nor could a policy that did be effective (when looking for a specific tree that might or might not exist, planting a dense forest of trees, potential trees and potential potential trees and then examining each one individually is not helpful). When he became aware that this potential, potential, potential COI was now merely a potential COI Alistair advised the board in accordance with policies and best practice. The board initially made an interim judgement that no resignations were necessary and sought advice from at least two external expert sources, both of which also said that no resignations were necessary because Alistair can (and AIUI has said he will) recuse from any discussion or decisions about CIPR that come to the WMUK board, and from any discussion or decisions about WMUK that come to the CIPR board.
Some people seem to be trying to prejudge the appropriateness future actions of a professional body in the UK based on the alleged past actions of an unrelated body in the US and what Jimbo said about a hypothetical editor who might or might not be eligible to join that body. This is just as ridiculous as claiming that because a US journalist made POV edits to a Wikipedia article five years ago, the goal of the National Union of Journalists is fundamentally incompatible with anything and everything anything related to the goals of any Wikimedia project.
Scrutiny is desirable. You do need to accept though that no matter how much you may want there to be a scandal, sometimes there really isn't one. There may be one in the future, but if you keep hounding people over events where people acted correctly and everything is above board then they will not believe you when you next cry wolf.
I am not yet a member of WMUK (I have applied, but AFAIK there has not been an appropriate meeting since the date of my application at which it could be considered), but I am not seeing a need for an EGM. If one was called though, I have not seen any evidence that would lead me to support a motion as proposed above. Thryduulf (talk:local | en.wp | en.wikt) 22:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Please don't accuse people of crying wolf. With some notable exceptions, this discussion has mostly managed to maintain an assumption of good faith and I think everyone would like that assumption to continue.
2. I agree the colourful examples from elsewhere weren't exactly helpful, but that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of CIPR is in conflict with that of WMUK.
3. A number of people have stated that they hope that the conflict can be managed in a sensible way. I for one think that the draft guidelines on COI editing will help in managing the conflict. There are probably other things we could do to, but having an individual in a position of trust for both organisations is not one of them.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is very far from crying wolf, and, for me, this is about the future not the past and about both jobs being occupied by one individual, not one particular individual. Inevitably we have to keep mentioning Alastair's name, but the exact same considerations would apply to anyone else who sought both jobs. We are already getting bogged down in COI issues, even over the so-called agreed guidelines and there seems plenty of scope for more. Although our values are not compatible with those of the PR industry (see above) we do operate in the same information ecosystem and that is exactly the problem. We both trade, so to speak, in information, it is in what we do with it and in how we approach it that the conflict arises.

I am unclear exactly how this is all going to work in practice. Both are senior appointments, both bodies operate in the same information ecosystem, exactly how many times can one person recuse themselves from different discussions or argue contrary to vested interests of an employer before they cannot carry out the duties of these positions effectively? What if we need in WMUK the Secretary's experience in a particular matter but he has had to absent himself? What if CIPR or one of its members says "we are paying you £50/75/100K per annum, we want you to stay in the room and earn your money and act in our interest not someone else's". What if Alastair is in a CIPR board meeting or with a client of a CIPR member and these matters arise, is he really going to bite the hand that feeds and be seen to argue against powerful corporate interests, leave the room or remain silent? There simply isn't enough clear blue water here between the two posts to make me feel comfortable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have seen these arguments above, but I still have not seen any evidence that the two organisations actually are both so diametrically opposed and indivisibly entwined, despite numerous assertions with varying levels of hyperbole. Iff the CIPR asks Alistair (or another person in this position) to act in a way that would force an actual applied conflict of interest (by which I mean not recusing from discussions where you have a COI) then Alistair (or whoever) would need to resign one or both positions, just as he would if WMUK asked the same thing. It would be inappropriate for anyone to dictate to Alistair which position he should resign from. I have full trust that the WMUK board would not appoint someone who would refused to resign when faced with this situation. However until such a situation actually exists we have no cause to claim one does, or to insist the parties act to resolve it as if it did. Thryduulf (talk:local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has said the two organisations are diametrically opposed. Indeed, I have implied that they are not diametrically opposed by expressing the hope that the conflicting purposes of the two organisations can be managed with such measures as guidelines on COI editing. This does not change the fact that the purposes of the two organisations are in conflict. One organisation seeks to support Wikimedia projects, projects that value neutrality, not least because it enables people of differing points of view to work together towards the common goal of free information. The other organisation seeks to represent the interests of the PR industry, an industry that seeks to bring the public round to agreeing with the views that are in its clients' interests.

When you talk about the board appointing Alastair you miss the fact that he was actually elected. I doubt he would have been elected if the members had known that he would later be given a senior role at CIPR. I don't want to cast any aspersion about this. Arguably, it was perfectly reasonable to not mention it, since he hadn't been invited for interview yet. The issue is the best thing to do now, given the situation we are in. How can the board maintain the trust of the community? How can we ensure that the charity stays true to its purpose? How can we manage the situation without having to decide, in advance, how a trustee would respond to each of an innumerable set of hypothetical problems?

Yaris678 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Joseph Seddon

I have been unable to comment prior to this but feel that as someone who has criticized the board publicly and privately in the past I should, if in the best interests of the chapter, do so again. I have called on board members to step down in the past when they, as far as I am concerned, have materially damaged this chapter and its reputation due to their continued presence on a board. I would do it again if so required. In the case of Alistair this has not happened.

Firstly, Alistair has not in anyway acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a board member. In fact Alistair has handled himself throughout this in such a way that he is almost beyond reproach. He declared the conflict of interest, he publicly acknowledges it and going forward we simply ensure that as a trustee, he does not act on behalf of Wikimedia UK working with CIPR. Any contacts through Alistair's role should simply be offloaded to another board member before being pursued. The board has gotten some useful experience handling COI with Mike Peel's role with the FDC and the relationship we have with CIPR is no in anyway as symbiotic or intrinsic to our existence.

Secondly CIPR and WMUK have a good history. We have done some fantastic work with them through Steve and Andrew and its work we should continue to build on if it is of benefit to us. Being the secretary of WMUK isn't going to give CIPR some tactical advantage in getting PR agencies an inside track to Wikipedia. Lets be a little realistic here. WMUK has no real power on wikipedia and we should not have delusions of grandeur as to how much leverage CIPR would have even if we didn't manage the COI.

Thirdly, we are not talking about someone who is financially gaining as a result of his role with Wikimedia UK. Alistair has experience of being a Chief Executive of a professional body long before he joined Wikimedia UK. He has experience of working with PR and communications etc. long before being involved with Wikimedia UK. We were no springboard and he has not abused his position. I do not think it undermines the position of the chapter either. If anything the fact that we have someone who is a chief executive of a major professional organisation means we have some fantastic governance experience on the board. Getting rid of that would be idiotic at best.

I encourage members not to support any call for an EGM in relation to Alistair at this time. My recommendation is that the board appoint a board member to handle all relations with CIPR going into the future. If people are going to continue to be paranoid, other ideas might be for the board to maintain a log of any actions in relation to CIPR and Alistair's role and review these every 6 or maybe 12 months.

Lets turn down the vitriol however. It is a great deal more damaging to the chapter than Alistair's continued presence on the board. Seddon (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing your points in turn:

1. Alastair has not in anyway acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a board member - Agreed
2. CIPR and WMUK have a good history - Agreed
3. We are not talking about someone who is financially gaining as a result of his role with Wikimedia UK - Agreed
4. Let's turn down the vitriol - Agreed

But you have not address the point about the purposes of CIPR and WMUK being in conflict. Your mention of Mike Peel and the FDC is an interesting contrast. In that case, the conflict of interest is clear... but the way to manage it is also pretty clear. This is doable because the ultimate aims of the organisations, to support Wikimedia projects, are not in conflict. The conflict only arises about the means to those aims. e.g. Mike might want WMUK to be responsible for delivering something that the FDC wants to pay for but it is not necessarily in the interest of the FDC to get WMUK to do it, which is why Mike recuses from decisions of the FDC relating to WMUK. No such simple solution exists when there is a conflict in the purposes of the organisations.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe (especially his closing sentence) and Thryduulf. I have the utmost respect for those arguing that Alistair should step down, but I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the two positions are so incompatible that Alistair must sign from one or the other. There is a potential conflict of interest, but it is one I believe can be managed. Alistair is not going to be practising public relations as such (ie advocating for a client), he is going to be the chief executive of the industry's professional body; nor does his position with WMUK put him in a position to influence Wikipedia content. The vast majority of WMUK's work would have nothing whatsoever to do with the PR industry, and Wikipedia is presumably only one in a vast array of resources through which the industry might seek to promote their clients. We need trustees with experience like Alistair's (and we can't keep losing trustees!). Harry Mitchell (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Seddon also. I think Alastair and the Board have handled the situation well. There is a potential for conflicts of interest to arise, but Alastair has anticipated these and been very clear about them in his statement. This approach is in line with Charity Commission guidelines, WMF guidelines, and the Hudson report - and this has been endorsed by an independent governance expert, and by the General Counsel of the WMF. I see no need for any resignation here, and in fact believe it would be damaging to the charity. The wub (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Seddon, Harry and Peter above. Alastair, an outsider, has invested significant time in getting to learn about our organisation and how he can be of service to it as a volunteer. The policy on eligibility for the Board is clear: if we didn't want him as a trustee, the policy should have been different. When he was on the board, Fae had ample opportunity to shape this policy. Policy, rather than post-hoc drama, is how mature organisations handle this sort of issue. Yaris, I see what you're getting at with your in-conflict/not-in-conflict analysis, but I think you've oversimplified and the two cases are more similar than you've made out. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you neglect the question of whether Alastair would have been on the board in the first place had it been known he was applying for the CIPR job. He could have waited a year, worked as a volunteer like the rest of us and applied later. As it is, he has gone almost straight in as Secretary with no past experience in our projects, weeks before then getting the CIPR job, appointed by people who knew about his appointment here. It is the motives of the CIPR selectors that continue to worry me and the difficult ethical challenges anyone might face when dealing with the PR industry all day long, particularly given the disparity in commitment and pay. I accept at face value that Alastair was unaware of how contentious this matter was, despite extensive publicity about it. Did he not research Wikipedia and the PR industry before applying for either job? One would think he would have done. Here is a May 2012 article from PR Week for example. I hope I have just been reading too many copies of Private Eye.

You also rather miss Yaris's, and my, point that it is precisely because the PR industry and Wikipedia have so much cross-over that this is a problem. If the two entities were completely divorced in their activities none of this would matter. We both deal in the same medium, information, but it is in what we seek to do with it that we are so fundamentally different. It's all been said above. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That I'm not persuaded by arguments doesn't mean I've neglected them. Sorry, Philafrenzy, I appreciate your good intentions and your patient argument, but I'm still seeing the arguments as oversimplifications, and you repeatedly describe the role of Secretary as if it's something that requires editing Wikipedia pages. "Disparity in pay" is a red herring: plenty of our community have day jobs that pay all their bills and an involvement with WMUK that actually costs them a bit of money, but they're far more loyal to the chapter because they recognise and internalise its ideals. I think if you were to look at the objectives of almost any volunteer's day job, you'd find goals that are contrary to the Wikimedia movement. For example, educational institutions such as universities are increasingly focused on competition and on ownership of intellectual property. We manage that by judging volunteer contributions on their individual merit, or by having formal partnerships with narrow scopes of activity. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I have explained above why this case is different Martin but I really feel that in this thread almost everything worth saying has now been said and we ought to turn our attention elsewhere. I haven't changed my views but it is evident that a motion of the type I mooted above would be unlikely to pass in an EGM and therefore I am withdrawing my support for an EGM. We will just have to rely on good old-fashioned vigilance. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for information: CIPR president-elect Stephen Waddington hits out after reports of Wikipedia abuse by US PR company. (View it through Google News if you can't link directly) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Jordan French in that article was classic PR puffery and completely false; "There is a rather silent majority on Wikipedia that supports paid editing." --Fæ (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, I should point out, for those who haven't read the article, that Jordan French is the CEO of Wiki-PR. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to comments about CIPR vs. issuing or withdrawing the draft WMUK/CIPR paid editing guidelines

Does anyone else find it odd how quickly qualifications to comments about CIPR are added to this Water cooler, apparently to ensure that CIPR are presented well, and yet a direct request for action to either withdraw or publish the WMUK/CIPR paid editing guidelines gets ignored? --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a part of my job to keep an eye on the water cooler and engage where appropriate. On this occasion I felt it possible that people unfamiliar with the story may make an erroneous assumption that Jordan French is connected with the CIPR. I wanted to be clear that he isn't. With regards to the second part of your comment, I do not speak on behalf of the Board, or the CIPR, or anyone else. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It used to be the case that when an employee of WMUK was writing using an official WMUK account, they were considered to be representing WMUK. Is that no longer considered true? I note that various official and unofficial accounts have been used to edit the FDC grant application, so perhaps this has been allowed to become blurred. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, representing WMUK and speaking on behalf of the board are obviously very different things. I said I wasn't speaking for the board. I didn't say I wasn't representing WMUK. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, "I took I do not speak ... [for] anyone else" literally. Hopefully my assumption that the double negative "I didn't say I wasn't representing WMUK" means "I do represent WMUK" is now the correct one, and therefore your comments relating to CIPR are on behalf of WMUK as would be any comments by employees of WMUK. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying here or trying to infer so let me be very clear. I work for Wikimedia UK. I do not speak for the board of Wikimedia UK. I'm not sure what the CIPR has to do with anything here but I obviously do not work for them and I obviously do not speak for them. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

At no time in this thread have I said that you were speaking for the board of WMUK, neither have I said anywhere that you speak for CIPR, these assertions have been made only by yourself and I find them a misdirection from my original question of whether anyone finds it odd how quickly statements about CIPR get qualified but direct proposals for action remain ignored.

So far you have failed to agree or confirm that when you or any employee writes using an official account of WMUK then you are representing WMUK. I do not understand why it is necessary to make such a simple statement appear complex by talking about the board or using double negatives to apparently avoid confirming it. Employees of WMUK, when acting within their terms of employment, are always representing WMUK, this is a basic statement of fact, given what I know of the standard WMUK employee contract, my experience when interviewing you and other employees for their jobs, and a reason why the charity pays for liability insurance. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Following a helpful discussion with Leutha yesterday I agreed to try and bring clarity to the exact nature of the CIPR guidelines. I am content to confirm that the CIPR editing guidelines are not a 'formal agreement' with WMUK. They were discussed with our community (around 200 or so edits) which helped shape them but there was no formality involved. There was a feeling that a consensus had been achieved. CIPR is of course an independent organisation and what they do in terms of advising their members is down to them. We were happy that they took the line they did in advising members to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I hope this helps. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please confirm to what extent you or other board members have discussed this with Alastair. Avoiding ambiguity using the precaution of making declarations when CIPR is involved and while WMUK has the CIPR CEO on the board, seems a sensible way of publicly managing Alastair's conflict of interest. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As this discussion and my request for the simple action of either withdrawing or issuing the draft appears to be making me no friends here, I have created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals so that the community affected can express their own opinions if they so wish. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Signpost discussion

Note ongoing discussion between Stevie and myself, concerning the York Museums Trust Wikipedian in Residence job, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-09-11/In_the_media Andreas JN 14:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in the discussion, I've added a further response which I hope is helpful. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically, the upshot of the conversation from my point of view is that

1. it would make sense to co-ordinate publicity with partner institutions, so the public does not gain the impression that WMUK is funding institutions' self-promotion;
2. if we have money to spend, we should focus less on broadening Wikipedia's coverage of niche subjects, and more on enhancing the quality of pages that both (a) attract high page views AND (b) cover topics that it is important for Wikipedia to get right (e.g. medical advice, including drugs advice and sex education, legal advice, "vital articles", etc.)

If we use donors' funds, we should prioritise projects in a way that ensures both that the largest possible number of readers profit, and that the improvements are as significant as possible from an educational point of view. I would like to see WMUK expand the Wikipedian-in-Residence concept beyond the GLAM area, paying subject matter experts in reputable educational organisations to monitor and contribute to important articles and topic areas in Wikipedia.

Further discussion welcome. Best, Andreas JN 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note recent comments from Sue Gardner. Stand-out quote for me:

• Last year, WMF spent US$ 4.71 million in FDC annual plan grants, excluding WMF (US$ 5.65 million for all grants), and is projected to increase this up to as much as US$ 6 million this year for FDC annual plan grants (US$ 8 million overall in grants). That's a lot of money. While the Program Evaluation and Design, and Grantmaking Learning and Evaluation teams at WMF will be supporting the FDC in understanding the impact of global Wikimedia programs, there is currently not much evidence suggesting this spending is significantly helping us to achieve the Wikimedia mission. I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing.

Before donations are spent, there ought to be a process of prioritisation, based on quantifiable reader benefit – using criteria such as number of readers that will benefit, degree of improvement, importance of the information, etc.

I read what Sue says here as a startlingly clear admission that she believes donations are not being spent wisely and effectively – and that is what donors are promised in the fundraisers. --Andreas JN 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"paying subject matter experts in reputable educational organisations" is not a suitable use of donor money. Those experts are already paid, usually by the taxpayer or by charitable funds. They already have a push from funders to engage with the public or to open up education. It's not a sustainable model for Wikipedian's 24 million articles, or even a relatively small subset, to have experts paid from donor money to monitor them. What is feasible is for Wikimedia UK to do training and outreach which overcomes the barriers to these experts engaging with Wikipedia routinely. That way, small amounts of donor money leverage (horrible word, but it's appropriate) large amounts of non-donor money and effort.

A relatively large proportion of our outreach is already in the medical sector, and it looks like something will be happening with Bristol NHS in the coming year. Different people have different views on what is important knowledge to preserve and disseminate: if you want to tell arts and humanities academics, librarians or curators that their fields aren't important, be my guest. I don't think you speak for all donors on this matter.

Some consideration of marginal impact has to be made when using funds and effort, and the marginal effect on what you call a "niche" such as a local museum can be much greater than medical or scientific areas where huge sums of public and charitable money are already being spent on informing and engaging the public. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Those huge sums may be spent on informing and engaging the public, but they are not spent on improving Wikipedia, which is what our donors' money should be spent on. If you can create a paid position in York Museum, you can also create a paid position staffed by an actual expert in an educational institution to assess Wikipedia coverage of key topic areas. The benefit to the public will be infinitely greater than paid work on some niche area. It's about leveraging funds to best effect. Andreas JN 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, has the WiR for York been selected yet? Andreas JN 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andreas. Leaving aside your other points, the York Museums Trust Wikimedian in Residence has been provisionally appointed (after an open recruitment process) and we hope to be in a position to properly announce this soon - hopefully by the end of this week. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to follow this up for everyone that's interested, I can confirm that the York Museums Trust Wikimedian in Residence is now in post. His name is Pat Hadley and you can find out more in our blog post here. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Announcing new WMUK trustees

The board of Wikimedia UK is pleased to be able to announce today the co-option for a two year term of two new trustees, Carol Campbell and Kate West, both of whom have specialist expertise. Carol has extensive experience of volunteer organisations and brings strong conflict-management and relationship-building skills to the board. She was previously Cathedral Executive Officer at Ely Cathedral. Kate is Chief Operating Officer at the Electoral Reform Society, and brings strong governance, management, policy and planning skills. We welcome them both.

Further extension of the board can be expected soon, particularly with a view to increasing the proportion of trustees who are active members of the Wikimedia community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael, considering that for non-elected trustee positions, potential conflicts of loyalties would already have been reviewed by the board of trustees, could statements please be added promptly to Declarations of Interest? For future co-options I recommend that trustees consider publishing these the same week as making an announcement. Members have a stake in how past or current relationships with suppliers and partners of Wikimedia UK are managed, including those that happen to be through close family members, and therefore ought to be made aware of potential conflicts of loyalties as early as possible, even though that authority and responsibility is legally delegated to the trustees on our behalf.

Considering some specific in-camera advice from Stone King to the board of trustees last year, I would expect that pre-existing friendships of any kind requires careful discussion and to be part of the public declaration whenever relevant or where this may be seen to have influenced a choice of co-option. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge nothing has been added to Declarations of Interest as neither of the new trustees has any known actual or potential conflict. However, for the sake of transparency it makes sense to have a statement anyway, even if it's a null statement. I'm following up and will post something as soon as I am certain. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I would think that anyone with long careers in religious or political sectors to consider, may wish to document potential conflicts of loyalties with future proposed programmes and funding decisions, before any become a reality. For example, the Electoral Reform Society is a campaign group that is worth a public declaration for the benefit of members, even if a declaration says little more than you have here already. Similarly, current trustees may wish to review issues of the moment to update their own declarations, for example anyone with close family members involved with CIPR might find this now relevant to make clear, whereas last year it might not have seemed important enough. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the CIPR point just an example Fae, or you think it actually might apply to WMUK? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It may apply, though I have no reason to think that anything one might notice in the public record is any more than coincidence. --Fæ (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Preparations for EduWiki 2013

Preparations for EduWiki Conference 2013 are now in full swing. The event will take place on 1-2 November 2013 in Cardiff. Registration is open until 20 October and a number of different rates are available. Details about accommodation options at and around the conference venue have also been released. A limited budget to support scholarships for the conference has been allocated and applications; please contact Daria Cybulska (daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk) by Monday 7 October to apply.

We are also in the process of trialing a conference information mobile app called EventSpark, which is being developed by a potential Wikimania 2014 sponsor. More on this in the coming days - i.e. as soon as we have something concrete to share with the public.

Kindly direct any personal questions or concerns to me. We hope to see many members of the WMUK community at the conference, especially those who live within easy traveling distance from Cardiff. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

When you say EventSpark are a potential "Wikimania 2014 sponsor", does this mean that that money will be changing hands. Will WMUK be in receipt of any funds? Having looked at their app, it seems to be some form of advertising ("It’s now easy to feature and sell your space online."), possibly in competition with WikiVoyager. Whilst I can understand it would give them an enormous boost to have it promoted at Wikimania 2014, I am not quite sure what either WMUK or the wider Wikimedia community get from this trialing? Leutha (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any money changing hands nor whether this may or may not happen in the future. WMUK will certainly not be in receipt of any funds from this arrangement in relation to EduWiki. WMUK has agreed to be involved in this as a way to support Wikimania 2014, since the request came from that event's main organisers. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

EventSpark is in fact a different product by a different company - the one we're thinking of using is a conference support app similar to something like http://www.eventmobi.com/. The sponsorship element would involve in-kind donation of their app as a service. EdSaperia (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Training for Trustees

It is great to see some new trustees come on board, but unfortunately I have recently found myself in a situation where it seems that a trustee has not really grasped what is meant by "attribution" in the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Creative license (This license says that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work" (emphasis added). As Carol Campbell and Kate West have not arisen from within the community, I would suggest they are provided with some training in this. It may well also be useful to provide some refresher training for existing trustees to help them better exercise their responsibilities in this area. Leutha (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will be included in the induction for Carol and Kate, and refreshers can easily be provided for anyone who needs it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Why have the Water cooler?

I wonder if it might be a moment to think about why we have the [cooler] and how we can use it best.

I see it as two things. Firstly a forum for discussion and debate and secondly a notice board for ideas, events and activities.

But a few questions:

How can we get more people involved? We counted less than 20 people using it in a six month period.

How can we make it more manageable? The scrolling has become a little out of control.

Are there postings, and I put this in the kindest way possible, that might be better as direct enquiries to the person concerned? Some of the postings are so arcane that they could better be answered off-wiki.

And one final question - can we make it more friendly? Even as I type this I wonder whether I am putting my neck on the line for a good chopping. It shouldn't be like that. If people see lots of negativity they will be put off and miss out on all the stuff we share. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly easy way to make it more manageable, auto archive all discussions that haven't had a post in 7 days. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that would eliminate the excessive scrolling because on the current page today that would archive next to nothing and the excessive scrolling would remain practically as is. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard N did a big archiving session manually this morning, if he hadn't there would have been threads with stuff from August. But we can probably collapse some threads. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew there was something more to your suggestion than meets the eye! :-) --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"We counted less than 20 people using it in a six month period" - this is a natural symptom of failing to increase the membership of the charity, or increase numbers of volunteers (two years ago we expected the numbers of volunteers to grow exponentially and organically, we never dreamed the charity would remain effectively static +/-20%). If we only have 80 active volunteers who work with the charity (not counting those that are being paid to contribute), then the likelihood is that you would be doing fantastically well to have 25% of them writing here about anything, or even reading this forum. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Should it be visible only to members? That might be one way to make membership more distinct from non-membership, though it wouldn't necessarily make it more friendly as people might speak even more frankly out of the public gaze. I am in favour of openness but not sure why this particular forum necessarily has to be a public one? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Benefits for members is something to consider, but closing forums without a solid reason to do so, goes against the mission of this charity. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand but there seems to be nowhere here where the membership can have a robust debate without washing our dirty linen in public. It's not like we all go to the same place of work or have a regular meeting everyone attends. How do other chapters handle it? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Other chapters handle it with some difficulty too. Some chapters have a 'members only' wiki, others have an online forum for discussion, rather than a wiki. Would enabling some of the features of Mediawiki help - such as Flow when it's ready, or Echo? These tend to make the wiki easier to use, and might encourage more outside input. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how enabling echo could be a bad thing, regardless of whether it is an answer to this question or not. I don't have any experience of using Flow, but if its like Liquid Threads then its unlikely to help anything.
One possibility to solve the scrolling problem would be to have different pages for different topics, with this page being left for things that don't fit elsewhere - kind of like how the reference desks are organised at en.wp. If MediaWiki supports restricting read access to certain userlevels then some pages could be made members only if desired. This would require setting up a "members" class of user (not difficult) and assigning all WMUK members to it (potentially tricky to identify all as you are not required to disclose your username when registering) and unless automatable there would be a delay between becoming a member and getting access to the members only pages, at least for those joining outside office hours. Really though I think only things that cannot be discussed in public should be members only - I imagine the COI discussion would additionally attract accusations relating to hiding things if held in a members only venue for example. Having members only pages might encourage increasingly more things to be members only though, which I'm not generally in favour of.
Another option would be to set up a forum additional to this wiki. MediaWiki is a fantastic wiki platform but it's very poor at being a forum because it isn't one and was never designed with that usecase in mind. Things like event signups work well on wiki pages, and would remain here but threaded discussion would move to the forum. If you choose to do that, make sure before it goes live that there are no copyright, licensing or T&C impediments to the two-way copying of posting between venues. Ideally you'd choose a forum platform that can be closely integrated with the wiki, but I don't know to what extent that is possible.
In terms of reach, fæ has a point but I suggest that simply not being able to access some of the discussions presently here would not be a sufficient draw, on its own, to a significant number of people and that not being able to access any of these discussions would result in fewer people becoming members - this page is what finally prompted me to join for example (although I'm still waiting for confirmation of membership). Accordingly I suggest that for now we treat them as separate questions - if we increase the membership without coresponding activity here from those new users then we can revisit it. If we get changes here right then in theory it should be equally attractive to new and existing members. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion has missed something (speaking as somebody who keeps a lazy eye on the recent changes on this wiki but doesn't really follow the water cooler). We like to think that lots of people read this page, but it's simply not the case. The main forum for discussion of WMUK-related things and Wikimedia-related things in the UK is the mailing list (I know some people like to think that's not so because they think WMUK should control everything, which seems to have been the the idea behind the migration of this wiki, but it's a fact). The 20 people using the water cooler (other than trustees and staff, and the handful of volunteers who look at this wiki on a regular basis) were probably drawn here from posts to the mailing list. Personally, I find the mailing list is easier for people to use and easier to keep up with, but some people really don't like mailing lists, so it's worth having both, but the number of people who follow the water cooler who aren't on the mailing list could probably be counted on one hand.

Whether the water cooler has the potential to be a more lively forum depends on whether we can define its purpose and how we advertise discussions here, but I would respectfully suggest that duplicating posts to the mailing list isn't the answer, and neither is posting messages here and not on the mailing list. I would imagine that increased use of the water cooler would be a symptom of larger and more involved volunteer and membership bases, but it's not an end in itself. Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The evidence does not support your view Harry, I read both and if you take the CIPR question for example, which must be the most important recent discussion, there has been almost no substantive discussion of that matter there while extensive reasoned contributions about it have been made here. I think you could say the same for most topics in fact. As for practicality, in what way are dozens of separate email messages more practical than being able to see everything on one page? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikimedia UK needs a website

Wikimedia UK is perhaps alone within the charitable sector in the UK in that it does not have a conventional website. We do have plenty of information that is publicly available through our wiki but it is disorganised and lacks a proper information architecture. It is especially unwelcoming for new and potential volunteers as well as those people just interested in learning more about the work of the chapter. Wikis are at the heart of our activities and this is appropriate. However, I propose that we create a small, welcoming and friendly website that overlays our wiki. This would have its own design and would not generally be community editable (although the content would be written collaboratively). It would feature perhaps six or seven useful pages (see below) that would all link back to the wiki. The wiki would remain of fundamental importance as a place of collaboration, discussion and engagement.

It is important that useful information is quickly and easily available to people interested in our work but not experienced with wikis. This includes many of the significant number of people who are familiar with reading, but not editing, Wikimedia projects.

I understand that there may be some resistance to this approach given the importance of wikis to our work. However, for our charity to develop its base of volunteers and members we must be much more appealing to newcomers. By having a website overlaying the wiki we are making important information available to everyone rather than those familiar with the use of wikis. I would like to show respect for the community by encouraging volunteers to take part in drafting the content for the website if the proposal is accepted. Nothing is yet set in stone so I hope we can have a useful, friendly and open-minded discussion about this idea. Proposed pages would include:

• Home
• About us / about the movement
• How do wikis work?
• Volunteer / get involved / join us
• Publications page – cheatsheets, welcome booklet, commons booklet, education / GLAM booklets etc
• Contact us (off-wiki but to also include on wiki information)
• Media page

Suggestions for further content are welcome although the idea is to keep it simple. In terms of design there is a need for the site to look modern, clean and visually attractive. It also needs to be as accessible as possible. I envisage a design with plenty of white space but with appropriate use of spot colour based on our brand colours. Each page will include a prominent link to the main page of the wiki and contact us pages as well as appropriate editable content / project / event pages on the wiki.

With a view to taking this forward I am looking to meet the MD of a leading local web design company who is interested in delivering some work on a pro bono basis. I believe that implementing a small website over the top of our wiki will make us an easier organisation to engage with while making us more attractive to volunteers, donors and the media. It will also help to reinforce our brand identity by being in keeping with printed collateral that we prepare in house or with a graphic designer. A side benefit is that we may even be able to implement some of the design elements from this website into the VLE although this is nothing more than conjecture on my behalf at this point.

Please do let me know what you think. I believe this would be a good move for Wikimedia UK and would make it much easier for people who aren't familiar with us to get involved in our activities. For context, WMDE have already taken this approach and I know that WMNL are working on something so this wouldn't be setting a precedent within the movement. I'm looking forward to receiving your constructive feedback. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. :-( This sort of thing doesn't need to be done separately from the wiki, and in a separate way - it can be done by having carefully designed wiki pages and navigation links/sidebar that provide structure for the rest of the content. Mike Peel (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we all take care with our pages. But I don't think it has worked so far. To outsiders it is impenetrable... Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The current home page is not obviously wrong to my eye, it looks quite professional and the wikiness of it ties in quite well with what we do actually. All the same links as proposed by Stevie seem to be there. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 for Mike's point of view, along with the fact that if we lock editing away from volunteers we create cliques and artificial barriers. Wikimedia UK is not supposed to be like other charities. The norm for other charities is that every word on their websites gets reviewed or written by a paid staff member, working this way would be a long, long way away from the mission and values of charity that we created - neither would we be able to call the charity "volunteer-centric" any more. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The main page is already locked so that only admins can edit because it is an official page and the first place many people will encounter the charity, so editors are not losing any rights with the implementation of a site over the wiki. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the main page already locked but you'll notice that the content for any website would be collaboratively written with the community. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point - really, the main page should be unlocked a bit so that everyone can update things like the events list. Other pages that Stevie's talking about here aren't currently protected, though - e.g. Volunteer... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that protection defaults to none. This means that protection only happens where there is a problem or there is unusual risk (such as a footer template that is transcluded on every page) and if the risk alleviates then protection periodically gets removed. If there are "official" pages, it would be good to have a category of those so they can be monitored and the numbers minimized to help avoid bureaucracy and ensure the site remains volunteer-centric. --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's broadly the standard approach of enwp (and it is a very good approach), but I'm afraid that it isn't the approach that that we've been taking on this wiki so far (dating back to WMUK having its own wiki). We have been designating 'official' pages that only admins can edit for quite a long time. I do like the idea of a category that includes all protected pages on this wiki, though - is there an easy way to do this? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a simple bot script, though having moved the wiki I am only assuming the API will work in an open manner as it does on Wikimedia sites and has not been restricted in some new way. However, you can browse existing protections by using this special page—tweak the parameters to suit. --Fæ (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Align left for readability. I think there's an important point here that's being missed and that is the audience for the website - people who aren't familiar with wikis. In my view we need something that is light, welcoming and clear for people who have just heard about the chapter and want to learn more. It's not established editors or volunteers. The wiki would be totally unaffected. And just to touch on the point about unlocking the main page. I don't think that would be sensible at all. The idea that anyone can come along and vandalise the main page of the charity's public facing website doesn't really bear thinking about. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The home page does seem light, welcoming, and clear to me. Do you have any evidence Stevie that people don't like it or find it confusing? I think this might be a lot of effort to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. Don't we have enough real stuff to deal with? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The evidence I have for this is anecdotal but may I suggest that as someone familiar with wikis that this would influence your opinion? As far as "real stuff" goes, we've been seeing a lot of discussion about engaging new members and volunteers. Somepeople have been expressing the view that we don't do enough to encourage people to get involved. I'd say this would be a step that we could take to make it easier to bridge the gap from someone hearing about the charity then taking the step to being a member. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 for Philafrenzy's point. Though improving the website is a nice regular thing to work on, there is no evidence that changes had any impact on the numbers of volunteers or members, indeed the wiki has had many improvements over the last few years, especially the landing page and events list, but these had no tangible effect for which anyone could provide evidence, such as user stories. I suspect from several years worth of anecdotal evidence that wikimeets where volunteers talk about projects and problems with other volunteers, are far more powerful at engaging new volunteers. If we want to reverse the decline, and for membership to go back to as it was, 50% higher, before Jon's tenure as CEO, then radical changes are needed. I can only hope that the board of trustees are considering significant change rather than Pollyanna-ish plans to spend another £700,000 in 2014 by drawing a straight line, on the assumption that we are doing fine and things will get better without agreeing any solid performance indicators for the charity that would underpin a robust strategy that the CEO will be held against (robust means measurable, such as publishing a monthly count of the number of active volunteers against a growth plan, so we can see whether the trend is up or down from a count of 87 active volunteers in 2012). We were committed to double or quadruple the size of the charity as measured by the numbers of active volunteers, it is a shame that these targets were dropped when found inconvenient, rather than driving new approaches.

Wikimeets are volunteer-centric events that cost the charity nothing and many volunteer driven projects that are enthusiastically talked about at wikimeets (such as my upload of 100,000 images of Aircraft, the categorization of 2,000,000 UK photographs on Wikimedia Commons or the LGBT free media collective) cost the charity precisely nothing and take no staff budget to manage but are still the bread and butter of the Wikimedia movement. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What do people think of other chapter websites? France Germany Netherlands Austria Switzerland

I would value some honest opinions? Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some are similar and some are slightly more glossy with greater use of graphics, but none are that different from ours. I would favour refining what we have, perhaps by making it slightly less cluttered, rather than a completely new site which will suck up everyone's time in arguing about the content. Are we embarrassed about using Wiki's? Please don't sacrifice usability and honesty for coolness. Isn't there also the point that if you create another corporate-style website for us we just become like all the rest? The current site is slightly geeky maybe but that might be distinctive? Isn't the clue in the name? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a welcoming landing page is a good idea, even if all it did was link off in friendly ways to various wiki pages. I refer you to e.g. the homepage of The Wikimedia Foundation: http://www.wikimedia.org/. Experienced users of wikis screen out the sidebars and extraneous links, but virgin users do not, and it can certainly be offputting. A custom landing page could also be made to work well on mobile devices. I can't help but imagine Yahoo executives in 2000 deriding the design of Google's homepage. It's worth noting that a lot can be achieved visually with just wiki code. I am pretty sure you can hide almost everything if you try hard enough, so maybe that's a reasonable compromise. On the other hand, I don't think a welcoming language page should be very high on the list of priorities for WMUK staff time, because I think the vast majority of valuable volunteers will cut their teeth on wikis like en.wikipedia.org before discovering such a thing as WMUK exists, so perhaps we should focus on e.g. making more people aware that wikipedia is a site that even they can edit, rather than worrying about non-technical people who manage to somehow stumble onto a small organisation that supports some activities of a few volunteers. EdSaperia (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the home page for the WMF is http://wikimediafoundation.org/ - http://www.wikimedia.org/ is more an index page for the projects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the current design and layout is fine for those of us who are used to it, but doesn't necessarily help people who aren't. I don't think we have ever systematically thought about what kinds of people are looking at this site and what they want to get - if we did we'd probably have a much more streamlined design. As to the implementation, I'm fairly agnostic about whether we can accomodate what we need from a better wiki, or whether something else is needed in addition. The Land (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I'm broadly against the idea of a separate website - it is too confusing and I disagree strongly with the idea of moving away from using Wiki's to build our tools :) There is nothing overly confusing about the current home page layout of this wiki - it could definitely be modernised with better css/design (which is 100% possible with a wiki!). And we could definitely consider some work on the default MediaWiki skin to make it more unique and pleasant. But fundamentally we are about Wikis, and we shouln't hide that from visitors!! --ErrantX (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have used this wiki as a wiki, I have been quite shocked at the poor level of maintenance, by which I mean things like navigation and in particular categorisation, which I think of as fundamental to the basic wiki function of making collaboration produce useful web pages. I have a number of questions about the use of this site.

• Does it have its own budget? I don't know the exact current position on this.
• How does WMUK stand now on the issue of volunteer versus staff involvement with this site? My impression is that the navigation matters that trouble me are still subject to "sofixit", so that for example the Education Committee pages are assumed to be drawn into some sort of order by the Committee.
• Why are Board meeting pages still titled in a style like Agenda 13Jul13? It's a small point, but these are not filenames for a Sinclair ZX. It all looks very much for internal use.
• Which are the key pages for OTRS volunteers to use in response to queries? Are they in presentable shape? My experience of this is now fairly ancient, but it should be known which pages are those that answer the questions the public has. The home page basically presents the charity as organising events.

I would suggest the issues Stevie raises might be addressed by:

1. A drive to categorise all the pages here;
2. Then a drive to move pages to systematic titles that are more informative, and introduce guidelines for page titles, to smarten the whole place up (and where at all possible banish subpages);
3. Then put at least something on the home page about "this site";
4. Then take stock. Which pages are so essential to fundraising, outreach and OTRS replies that they should be worked on carefully, and then perhaps protected? Which pages here need templating with "historic content retained for reference", and so on?

The key pages under (4) are those that might be worth having on a standalone website. I think we might have a better discussion of this issue if we had a list of which those are.

Further, I think the following really matters at present. As a strategic decision and as Fæ has brought up related matters here (a bit off-topic and I disagree with much of it, but still), I think Membership/Newsletter needs a rethink. I feel it is obvious that WMUK needs to do something to promote discussion of matters within the membership, within a suitable forum. That is, not on the UK mailing list (which is not WMUK's, and subject to the limitations of and drawbacks of email threads), and not in this wiki-thread style. I'm a fan of the Signpost structure (I'm not speaking of other aspects); but forum software, with light moderation, might allow us to see the public life of WMUK, contentious and somewhat politicised as it has become, on an issue-related and less a personality-related basis. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer trainers needed

Martin Poulter looking for volunteer assistants for next week's Women In Science editathon at Oxford University, on the afternoon of Tuesday 15th:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_University_of_Oxford/AdaLovelaceDay2013

...and our first Veterinary Science editathon, in London on the afternoon of Wednesday 20th November

https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Veterinary_Science_editathon

He reminisces:

My serious involvement with Wikimedia UK started when I supported training at Cancer Research UK. More experienced and confident people than I delivered the training, and some of us helped one-to-one. That low-stress experience helped build confidence to where I could deliver training workshops myself, and so now I'm particularly interested in working with people who are taking their first steps.

If you are interested could you him: infobomb@gmail.com

Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Who are our members and why did they join?

Following on from the membership discussion above, one thing that has just occurred to me is whether it is known why the existing WMUK members joined? If we know what attracted them we can go about doing/publicising more of those things. If we know why former members no longer are again we can see about either meeting their expectations or changing the publicity so we are not implying things we don't want to. How did they find out about WMUK?

If there is a breakdown of the membership by demographics then we can also use that to advise how we go about recruiting more members. It would be interesting and possibly useful to compare our membership with what is known about the general editor demographics of Wikipedia and of those actively engaged with the Wikimedia community as a whole and how we compare with other chapters (where that is known). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

*Some* of this was covered in a members survey last year and I need to re-run that again soon at the end of this month. There is also a survey for people who have expired/cancelled which is sent ot everyone but I don't think has ever had much engagement (maybe, three responses in the last year?) If you'd be interested in helping draft the questions/look at the other data with me I'd be so grateful as I've never got enough time to do in-depth analysis like this. If you want to pop to the office at any point again soon we could chat about it or just catch up on IRC? I'm keen to have more useful info to inform everyone's discussions :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll pop into the office when I can next walk properly (hopefully just a trapped nerve) and see what I can do. I'm not a brilliant analyst, but I can maybe help. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 09:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome and you can definitely help by being a sane extra pair of eyes :-) Dont come in if you're not well though - we can start on IRC? Is there a good time next week for you? Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fingers crossed I should be able to make it into the office on Monday afternoon or Tuesday. I've never used IRC so you'll have to point me in the right direction for that! Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The IRC channel WMUK uses is irc:wikimedia-uk ^connect. If you click connect it opens in your browser so you don't need to install any new programs. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Training the Trainers November 2013 event

Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, we are running a weekend training workshop. This will take place on the weekend of 23—24 November 2013 in Cardiff. This session is targeted at volunteers in Wales and the immediate surrounding areas. We are especially interested in editors of Wicipedia Cymraeg who work through the Welsh language. However, both English and Welsh language editors will be welcomed.

The workshop will be delivered by a professional training company and aims to improve delegates’ abilities to deliver any training workshop. It’s especially relevant to anybody who already runs Wikimedia-related training, or is very interested in doing so in near future.

The workshop is a chance to:

• Get accredited and receive detailed feedback about your presenting and training skills
• Get general trainer skills which you can then apply when delivering specific Wikipedia workshops
• Share your skills with others
• Help design a training programme that serves Wikimedia UK in the long term.

The course will run from 9:30 am—6:30pm on Saturday and 9am—5pm on Sunday. A light breakfast and lunch will be provided. We should also be able to cover travel and accommodation if you let us know in advance.

If you are interested in attending, please indicate your commitment by signing up on Training the Trainers/November 2013 event. Spaces are limited to 12 places.

If you are not able to attend this time but would like to take part in the future, please add it to the event page or let me know by email to katie.chanwikimedia.org.uk — we will be offering more sessions in the future.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. I can also put you in touch with past participants who will be able to share their experiences with you.

Regards,

Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki_PR update

For those interested Wiki Pr have been implicated in mass sock-puppetry.Leutha (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Information on CIPR and its 10,000 members

As CIPR is a partner of Wikimedia UK and with Alastair being their CEO that partnership appears to be very close indeed, I have been trying to find a public list of members of CIPR, but have been unsuccessful so far. Can someone point me in the right direction as I presume the list is not supposed to be secret?

I note that CIPR holds its members to account against their code of conduct and sanctions those that fail to meet it, I would like to track down the details of past violations as would have been confirmed by the CIPR Professional Practices Committee. Obviously with more than 10,000 members, it would seem likely that some of these offer Wikipedia related reputation management through forms of paid editing, whether in compliance with the Wikimedia UK officially approved paid editing guidelines or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The register is here http://www.cipr.co.uk/pr-register and shows 501 results so presumably not complete. See also http://www.prweek.com/article/1157339/cipr-list-members-online-increase-accountability Philafrenzy (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this worries me, considering the reputation of Wikimedia UK is tied to that of CIPR. CIPR claims to be an advocate for more than 10,000 PR professionals and their CEO stated that they would release the names of all members a year ago, committing to a date of implementation of 1 December 2012 in order to fulfil their duties under their Royal Charter. CIPR has apparently failed to do this. Without this transparency, it is not possible to confirm whether anyone found to be using "dark arts" to manipulate the English Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects has the support of CIPR, or not. For all we know WIKI-PR may have members of CIPR as employees or contractors. --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the gravest doubts about the PR industry Fae, but I am not sure there is any link here. I think WikiPR are based in the US and it seems unlikely that they would bother to join CIPR, or that CIPR would have them. (I did check to see if Damian McBride was on the list. He's not.) A complete public register would obviously be good for transparency but it may have proved impossible like the register of lobbyists which I think has been dropped by the Government. It also would not name the clients and I think CIPR could fairly say that we are largely anonymous. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Information about the paid editors (rather than just their clients) seems to be dropping out of the sockpuppet investigation, along with interesting sets of IPs. I would not write off any possible interest or inter-connection, after all 10,000 PR service providers as a membership is a huge proportion of the PR sector, especially considering that a large number of CIPR members are "Global Affiliates" which I infer means that they are not UK residents. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae - just thought I ought to point out that anyone using the "dark arts" to manipulate Wikipedia obviously does so without the "support" of CIPR, as CIPR explicitly condemns the practice. I believe you already know this, but it wasn't clear from your post. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, in line with its stated mission, CIPR is an advocate of the PR sector and all its members, period. If a member violates the code of conduct, then my understanding is that a complaint has to go through the CIPR Professional Practices Committee for consideration and a sanction might include removal of membership. I have made no claim as to what CIPR supports or not, other than its stated mission (and as might be interpreted from policies which may change over time).

As you appear to no longer be treating my questions as trolling, could you go back and answer my question with regard to what, as the Chairman of Wikimedia UK, you find shocking about WIKI-PR so that we can apply the same viewpoint to any member of CIPR that may have used the same techniques. I would appreciate it if you would declare up front if you have discussed any of these questions or issues with Alastair as the Secretary of WMUK and a paid advocate of CIPR and its members, or indeed any other member of CIPR.

I believe it would be timely for either you, or any other trustee, to respond to the action at #"CIPR_and_Wikimedia_UK_volunteers_have_agreed_a_set_of_guidelines_for_PR_practitioners" to withdraw the draft guidelines for Wikipedia paid editing, if there is no intention to either get them officially issued or agreed with the English Wikipedia community. The document is currently featured on Signpost as one of the achievements of CIPR. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been 7 days since I raised these questions, and considering trustees have been highly active in other discussions on this page, I no longer expect an answer from the WMUK Chairman, nor other trustees, on what will happen to the draft WMUK paid editing guidelines, nor any clear answer over whether he or other trustees consulted with Alastair, who takes the post of CEO of CIPR in November, before making comments about CIPR on this watercooler. In terms of transparency and openness with regard to board level management of declared conflicts of loyalties, it would be hard for anyone to consider a lack of unambiguous and non-political responses to direct questions about it a success. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the website, the figure of 501 is for members with a surname beginning with A. There are 983 members whose surname begins with B, and so on and so on. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a good job the CIPR is only a trade body and not a regulator isn't it? How would they ever keep tabs on 10,000 PR people? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work, I'll mine that list shortly. As I understand copyright, a list of member names is not copyrightable so I see no problems in my republishing a full flat list somewhere else.

As for CIPR being a regulator, yes, that is how they present their mission, so implementation is their problem rather than ours to doubt.

A flat list of members of CIPR is available online here as a spreadsheet. As a check you can find Gemma Griffiths listed as a member, Stevie Benton is not a member and Alastair McCapra is not a member. Though 10,501 names are listed, I would treat this as a maximum as I spotted at least one listed twice probably due to membership status changing. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Diversity Conference - how many UK volunteers are going?

Based on m:Wikimedia Diversity Conference/Schedule I can see that at least two UK staff members are being paid to join this conference but I cannot find any information on how many unpaid volunteers are attending. I know that travel grants from WMUK were offered, so could someone please confirm how many volunteers are being sponsored by Wikimedia UK to attend for this weekend in Berlin, and preferably publish a list somewhere? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

We are paying for two volunteers to attend and one member of staff, Daria, who has been organising it with WMDE. We had quite a few applicants, as you know, which is a good sign for the future, but made choosing difficult in order to get as broad a range of people as possible You can always phone the office to find out such things.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that should be in the monthly reports, not something that should require interested people to phone the office about! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Sorry for the slightly delayed response here, I've just noticed your comment. I agree it should be in the monthly report and it will be in the November report, along with any write-up of the conference which I am sure will be offered by those attending. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand this answer, it seems opaque. I can see from the official schedule, both Daria and Katie are going, this makes two members of staff being paid to go, I note that staff expenses for travel and accommodation come from staff budgets not volunteer budgets. Please just list the names of who are going so that the chapter's business can be seen to be transparent. One of the advantages of asking this question on-wiki is that the question is answered once, I cannot see the point of phoning the office and then writing answers I might get back on the Water cooler when you can do it directly and avoid bureaucracy or forcing members to behave like journalists to find out how money is being spent. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some sensitivities here, as you will be well aware of Fae from the treatment you have received in the past. For that reason I was/am reluctant to use people's names in this public forum without their permission. Given that Katie's name is already out there I can confirm that she will be attending but not as a member of staff. She will be attending in her own time as a volunteer and her funding will come from that budget. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding everybody about the four years of harassment I have endured, it does not seem relevant to this thread. It was certainly never a reason for my activities as a trustee nor for any funding I received from the chapter to be done in secret.

Considering the issues we have seen with a lack of growth (or decline) in numbers of active volunteers, and issues with not appearing a "volunteer-centric" organization, I find it bizarre that the chapter has fallen into the habit of counting staff members as volunteers whenever convenient. According to what you have said here so far, the chapter turned down several applications for travel grants to go to this conference from unpaid volunteers, and has decided to send two members of staff and fund just one unpaid volunteer rather than several. I am concerned that the reasons for obscuring the numbers of staff going and avoiding explaining who is being funded to go, is how this would appear politically. If a volunteer is being paid to spend a weekend in Berlin at a conference, then I can think of no good reasons that could possibly meet the mission and values of the chapter with regard to openness and transparency by keeping this a secret. Spending donated funds on secret projects and secret beneficiaries is not why the chapter was established as a charity.

If there is an undeclared issue here of potential conflict of loyalties with funding, it should be made openly. I remind you of the advice from Stone King last year with regard to making decisions for the charity that involve friends or close relatives. That advice for governance best practice applies to staff as well as trustees and requires transparency when it occurs. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am always happy to respond to questions from members of the community and will try and find them in your post. With regard to the names of the attendees I am unwilling to name anyone going to the conference without asking them first. I have asked Daria to contact the other person and check it is OK with them. I am pretty certain they will not mind but it is common courtesy and good practice to ask first. This is not about secrecy. There is no decline in active volunteers, despite what you assert. We now have 101 people listed which is a steady increase from a year ago of 83. Not enough of course but not a decline. You are extremely adept at jumping to conclusions to justify your assertions, to quote you: 'I find it bizarre that the chapter has fallen into the habit of counting staff members as volunteers whenever convenient'. This is just not the case. I informed the board that we had just enough funding for two volunteers. We had to choose two who represented as broad a range of diversity as possible. Candidates who were not successful were informed and given the chance to talk to me to find out why they had not been chosen. Some took me up on this offer and accepted our reasoning. Katie and her fellow volunteer represent several areas in which we are very weak as a chapter.

Katie applied as a volunteer as she knew she could not go as staff and as she remains an active volunteer, contributing many hours of unpaid volunteer effort, I believe this is entirely justified. Of our ten staff five were leading volunteers before they took up employment. Should they now be banned from being volunteers? To be personal, should I have to stop editing and taking part in Wiki Loves Monuments? If you have evidence that we have fallen into this habit can you let me have it instead of making vague assertions? I don't think we have. Richard S, Richard N, Jonathan, Katie and Toni are extremely careful to differentiate between their staff and volunteer roles. I am really pleased that Katie still wants to spend her own time as a volunteer in addition to the long hours she works as a member of staff.

I hope this is helpful and that we can all assume a little more good faith. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is helpful. The members can now see that the facts are that 2 current employees and one unpaid volunteer are being paid to go to this weekend conference in Berlin.

Your original answer of "one member of staff" was not a complete enough answer to avoid misleading the reader. Please do not parody my question as "banning from being volunteers", I am questioning the logic of reporting paid staff members as volunteers in official statistics or reports, or the trustee judging this as an appropriate way of implementing the value of keeping the charity volunteer-centric rather than being a political trick to by-pass it.

As for the numbers of volunteers, in 2012 we counted (by naming them) 87 active volunteers, not 83. We did not count staff as volunteers as far as I can recall. The figure of 101 volunteers is not one that I recognize, despite this being questioned for several months on this page. QUESTION Could you point me to where this has been published in a report to the board so that I can understand how this is counted (presumably using the logic here, it includes employees and "paid volunteers" rather than just "unpaid volunteers")?

As you are having difficult assessing where questions are, I have highlighted one in this post to avoid ambiguity.

So that we can keep track and show the trend as we have just started to do with membership, I have created Volunteers/numbers, please do add the source reports there. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The document to which you refer was developed as a means of tracking who is involved with the charity. It is not a public document any more than our register of members is public, and has not been something reported on to the board as it is mainly for office use. I can report on the headline numbers, however because it is a working document it has updated periodically rather than kept up-to-date minute-by-minute.

The document was created in July 2012, at which point it was estimated the community had 58 active volunteers. At the end of the 2012-13 financial year this was 59. By March 2013, this had increased to 79. At the end of June 2013, this number was 82.

In September 2013, in our proposal to the FDC we wanted to include the figure to show what kind of volunteer community we have. At that point I updated the document and the number had increased to 101. Part of the jump is because there were some people who had already been volunteers but were not documented in the file. This was not really an issue since it was intended for internal use. At the moment, the number stands at 103 (my apologies to Jon for supplying the out-of-date number of 101 earlier). The volunteer community has grown, which is unsurprising considering how many people have gone through Training the Trainers, how many people have received grants of one sort or another, and have got involved with events such as organising Wiki Loves Monuments or delivering training. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. I find it odd that Jon should start using this as tangential evidence of volunteer numbers in response to a question from me, if it has not been presented to the Board of Trustees before or used to respond to questions about volunteer numbers raised here over the last few months. In particular the board published figure of 87 volunteers (in Minutes_8Sep12/Strategy_day) was not challenged in 2012 as being at variance with any other document, in fact as a trustee at the time, though this was discussed in great detail with staff, the document you are now raising for the first time in public was not provided to the board.

If this is the evidence to be used by Operations in how we measure numbers of volunteers, the performance of the charity, and it has already been officially used as evidence for the FDC proposal, then I believe it is good practice to publish it openly on-wiki so that everyone can refer to it and understand how it is calculated (for example, counting anyone contributing to WLM might give over-generous figures if we want a count of long term active volunteers). I suggest you add the numbers you have quoted here to the table at Volunteers/numbers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Having spoken to the second volunteer attending the conference, he is happy to let people know that he is User:Kwaku BBM. He was chosen as he represents BEM users, an area WMUK is particularly weak in, and has an interest in black music and history. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What does 'BEM' mean? It doesn't seem to be an acronym that enwp knows (unless he's representing British Empire Medalists, or the endangered Black-eared Miner species). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Ethnic Minorities, or similar. Also known as BME or 'Black and Minority Ethnic' communities. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the dab page accordingly, although it seems that a relevant article doesn't exist on enwp here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe it is reasonable to say that Kwaku represents BEM users as his total number of edits on all Wikimedia projects is 15. In comparison my contributions number over a million and I co-founded the Wikimedia LGBT group/proposed thematic organization, making it fair to consider me a potential a representative of LGBT users, yet my application for a travel grant was rejected. This choice of funding verges on the bizarre if there was only sufficient funds to send 3 people, 2 of whom turn out to be Wikimedia UK employees (one employee having their expenses paid out of the volunteer budget) and the remaining applicant is highly problematic as they only registered a Wikimedia account in May this year, and have made no edits since June.

This is a poor use of the charity's/WMF funds, especially in the light of the fact that there were "quite a few applications" from unpaid volunteers who had reasons to contribute to the success of this conference and its expected outcomes. I hope the Board of Trustees will be asking questions on the record about this at the next board meeting. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that this does appear to be a poor choice. Has Kwaku done anything else apart from that 15? Surely someone should have some sort of established track record before we can reasonably call them a volunteer and pay out of chapter funds to send them to Berlin and back? I note that there is a plug for his personal project (www.BritishBlackMusic.com) on his user page which appears to be a commercial site soliciting advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly to reiterate and I can only hope you understand at last Fae, Katy is NOT GOING AS A MEMBER OF STAFF IN HER OWN TIME. She is going as a volunteer and of course one, who represents the LGBT community, women and an ethnic minority, all areas we can do better in. Secondly Kwaku does not have many edits but has been involved in hosting with WMUK an editathon around Black Music. He has shown a lot of energy and enthusiasm and is exactly the sort of volunteer we need to be encouraging if we are to grow. Given I knew how controversial this decision would be I consulted the board. It is a pity Fae that instead of taking up the offer we made for an explanation of why the decision was made you went straight to a public forum. If I was thinking of getting involved as a volunteer this sort of discussion would put me off. I would get the impression that unless I had done a zillion edits I could never be considered worthy. Our charitable funds are there to develop new talent and editors. I will make sure Kwaku is asked about the link. Perhaps someone form the community could reach out to him and help? Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jon, this remains a poor use of funds on apparent and unfortunate tokenism, regardless of how you politically reframe this decision, or try to pitch this as somehow my fault for asking very basic questions about who is being sent to a conference where getting factual answers rather than spin, has been like extracting teeth.

Sending someone with just 15 edits under their belt off for a fully paid residential weekend conference in Belin and who has direct COI issues in promoting their website on the English Wikipedia, is an obviously bad choice of how to spend several hundred pounds, when several other applications were made from unpaid willing and experienced volunteers to support this conference. Jon, please do not parody or marginalize this issue as being one of requiring a "zillion edits", this is someone who has barely made any edits, and has made no contributions on Wikimedia projects for the last four months. A justification that we create "new talent and editors" by sending them away for an all expenses paid free weekend in Berlin is not something I would expect the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees to support. This would be a very, very, poor way to spend our £700,000 budget in order to create new Wikipedia editors.

This was a serious mistake in the way the charity's money is spent, as the CEO you should recognize it as such and make a proper report back to the board on the improvements to the grant process that are required rather than expecting that typing in capitals makes a better justification that "we are doing fine, there is nothing to see here, go away and stop asking questions in public when you should only ask questions of the CEO in private and undocumented phone calls".

Lastly this is not any fault of Kwaku's, he has been poorly advised by the charity as to his suitability to represent BEM users at this conference. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that britishblackmusic.com has an advertising page which states: "If you want to know about other opportunities please contact our exclusive marketing agents, CyberMedia Solutions on xxx xxxx xxxx alternatively you can visit their website at www.cybermediasolutions.net" I suggest that Wikimedia UK reviews relationships like this rather more carefully, and ask sensible questions openly in relation to grants. --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this is not a Board-level decision, but the decision Jon's taken is quite reasonable in my view, and the Board will not interfere in cases like this. It'll be important for this conference that there are a wide range of perspectives represented, and the idea of sending two volunteers, one a long-standing Wikipedian with an interest in many aspects of diversity and one less experienced on-wiki but who has engaged with us enthusiastically off-wiki, seems eminently sensible. I would be very concerned if we started saying either that people need a certain number of edits to take part in our work, or indeed if we said that staff were no longer allowed to do any Wikimedia-related volunteering.

If I've understood correctly, Fae, you are essentially saying that you ought to have received funding to attend this conference. I can appreciate your disappointment but I don't feel that castigating Jon (or indeed Kwaku) in is an appropriate or mature response. The Land (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your position as Chairman is that the board of trustees is not prepared to discuss the problem of sending someone with only 15 edits, and who does not current contribute to Wikimedia projects, for a free weekend in Berlin with no commitment as to outcomes, apart from an apparent interest in promoting a sponsored website? I find that at odds with fact that the trustees have a duty to hold the CEO to account in order to ensure that the donated funds of the charity are wisely spent on the mission of the charity, and in line with the values of the charity. This is another case of the charities' money being involved in COI editing, I suggest you take time out to discuss this properly with your fellow trustees rather than dismissing it as an issue.

Jon said there were several applications for grants from volunteers. Please do not take this discussion off on a tangent as being about my application, I am just the only applicant to take time to ask questions about this conference on the Water Cooler. You will note Jon's response was to keep who was being funded a secret and leave secrecy as an option for the sponsored person, this was not in line with the values of openness, transparency and accountability that we value; especially considering the facts of this case. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae, I don't really know what you mean by "this is another case of the charity's money being involved in COI editing". This suggests two things; firstly that this is a case of the charity's money being involved in COI editing; second that there has been a previous one. I do not know of any evidence to suggest either of those things is true. Please could you either direct me to some, or withdraw your allegation. The Land (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, I suggest you avoid turning the water cooler into one if you actually want members to freely ask questions here without the impression that they might be prosecuted for doing so. I have made no "allegations". It is merely a fact on record that paid editing or COI editing was a long running project with CIPR. This took staff time and resources of the charity, especially considering the expense of the 2012 AGM where CIPR had members presenting.

If you wish to talk about CIPR further, please create a new thread rather than diverting this one. --Fæ (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I read your "the charity's money being involved in COI editing" as saying that the charity was funding people to engage in COI editing, but thank you for clarifying that's not what you meant. I am also struggling to see how to construe last year's CIPR project as "money being involved in COI editing" when the outcome was the CIPR telling people not to break Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, but never mind.... The Land (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to note that this thread shows a classic run-around. Jon points to the board of trustees for his authority on this decision "I knew how controversial this decision would be [so] I consulted the board" and you point back to Jon with "Obviously this is not a Board-level decision". I have been asking some basic questions, I do not expect spin and diversions with questions as simple as this. If Jon has full authority and responsibility for this decision, I suggest you make that completely clear to him, not just me, and hold him properly to account for the decision he then makes with how this money gets spent and any mistakes that might occur in the process. It is consequently Jon that has a responsibility to openly and transparently answer questions from members that may arise from his operational funding decisions.

I would be happy to discuss the apparent COI editing that promoting britishblackmusic.com and CyberMedia Solutions represents, should you have any real questions about that, and how this makes funding a weekend in Berlin to do the same, before this is properly and openly reviewed, an unacceptable use of the charity's money and a risk to the reputation of Wikimedia UK. --Fæ (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at Kwaku's edits and I can't see any "COI editing". He has a link to his site on his user page, which is quite allowed by the user page guidelines, and indeed recommended if there's a risk of getting into any vaguely COI-ish edits. The rest of his edits are clearly those of someone not used to using Wiki markup, but look to me like a good-faith attempt to improve coverage of the topic, very different to someone trying to promote something. Again, I read your post as saying we are sponsoring him to attend in order to promote two websites, which is certainly not the case (and you have no reason to believe it is the case). The Land (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did not look closely enough. Luckily I have more experience on that project than yourself, and from my experience as a past Admin (blocking many promotional accounts), I am aware that his user name fails the username policy, as it promotes his website (the shortcut is CORPNAME) and exceptions do not apply as he has promoted it on his user page. In addition, sadly, he appears to promote his own writing off-wiki in a reference in the "Music of Black Origin Awards" article and has only made edits to two articles, the only really meaningful edits happening on 17 May. I think any proper review of this account would find it problematic and Kwaku should be warned to avoid undeclared COI editing, which he has already engaged in, and be required to change his promotional account name. From his one day of problematic edits on the English Wikipedia, this is not someone that Wikimedia UK should be sponsoring for a weekend in Berlin and effectively representing Wikimedia UK. He has neither made enough of a contribution to be considered representative of Wikimedia BEM users, nor understands Wikimedia policies sufficiently to be a reliable representative. Being a member of a minority group of itself is not a reason to pay for a member of the public to have a free weekend in Berlin, they should be an active volunteer on Wikimedia projects otherwise this is just pure and embarrassing tokenism.

It is a pity that this is the first time these questions are being considered by the board of trustees or the CEO, when COI is such an important issue for the board otherwise. The ball has been dropped, please admit this is a mistake and act on it, rather throwing up chaff and defensive spin to make the problem go away. --Fæ (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really wise for you to boast about your experiences on the English Wikipedia? The Land (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it unwise for you to throw back obvious chaff to divert from the factual and clear evidence presented above showing that this funding decision is an embarrassing mistake for Wikimedia UK. If you wish to write about me and my boasting, I suggest you create a separate thread. --Fæ (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and - yes, Jon asked informally for the Board's advice. He felt it was unlikely your application would be supported but was concerned that, in that event, you would probably start some kind of public argument about it. The view I and other Board members expressed was that he ought to use his judgement without taking into consideration what individuals might end up posting on the Water Cooler. The Land (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Surprising then that despite this advice, Jon has twice recommended that members not post questions for him on the Water cooler but use private undocumented phone calls instead. --Fæ (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to ask these sort of questions in writing in a way other members can see them. How else will we know what is going on? If Fae had not pressed this matter, these facts would never have been disclosed. We need greater scrutiny, not less. If this is all too public, can we please have a place where these matters can be discussed in such a way as not to be indexed by Google. The paid employees of the chapter are not a filter through which every matter relating to the chapter should be directed. There needs to be somewhere here that members can discuss things among themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable having public discussions about whether a given individual should be participating in our activities. This should not become the norm. The Land (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am not surprised. The charity has many years experience of discussing micro-grants openly that does precisely that (the members have Mike Peel to thank for this commitment to openness and transparency, during his time as a trustee he constantly and consistently reminded the board of this core value of the charity). Secrecy about how the charity's money is being spent, has only become a problem recently for this charity, mostly an aspect of your leadership with Jon. Perhaps the trustees should consider doing rather less of their important business in-camera or in secret, and instead where the members can comment and see that good work is being done. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points here:

• I think it would be useful that when a member of staff is going to a Wikimedia event as a volunteer, this made clear. Being a member of staff is not simply a job, but it is also a role and they have a different relationship to the charity than someone who is simply a volunteer. It would have made this thread a lot more straight forward if Jon had reported at the outset that there was a second member of staff going in their own time as a volunteer. Whilst I agree that reading this discussion may be off-putting to volunteers, a little bit of clarity at the outset would have helped a lot.

I did make it clear (although given the length of the string it is easy to miss) Quote 'Given that Katie's name is already out there I can confirm that she will be attending but not as a member of staff. ' The reason I did not do it at once was I did not have Katie around to ask for her permission to mention her name in this context which was not a staff context. Fae outed her and I think that was bad practice. Apologies if I don't reply anymore but away for four days. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jon's statement that I outed Katie is a serious one, and it is blatantly false. In my first sentence, in fact the third word of it, on this thread I gave a link to m:Wikimedia Diversity Conference/Schedule which gives both Katie and Daria's names as presenters. Asking questions about what has been officially published on a Wikimedia website is not "bad practice", nor can this be construed in any possible way as me outing anyone. After 2 years as CEO of Wikimedia UK, I would expect Jon to understand the distinction of what is outing and what is not. I find the pattern of irrelevant chaff attempting to put blame on me for asking pretty straight-forward questions and highlighting an embarrassing funding error quite incredible. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem is that you have scarcely asked a "straightforward question" for over a year. You ask questions then pick over the answers to find fault in whatever answer has been given, then leap to an unreasonable conclusion which gives you something else to get angry about, and unless someone denies it straight away you treat it as if it's somehow become an establish fact. Any constructive point there might have been gets lost in the wash. The Land (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think rhetorical questions about staff being banned from volunteering really helps either. The issue is individuals being funded by WMUK to go to the diversity conference, not simply in participating in WMUK activities or editing WM sites.
• Furthermore I think that WMUK members who are being sponsored to attend an event should be asked to agree before hand about having that fact made public, and perhaps where the costs are significant that they provide a short statement as to how they think their sponsorship will help the Wikimedia community.
• Underlying all this it seems to me that in WMUK, some serious consideration has gone into the gender imbalance in the community and engaging with the Welsh language, I am not sure to what extent this has happened in other areas.

I agree with Philafrenzy that a members only Wiki might be useful for these discussions. Leutha (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

School of Data - data expedition

Hello everyone. In the course of my work I've recently been speaking with the School of Data. One of the things that they do which I think may be of particular interest is work on "Data Expeditions". These are collaborative efforts to gather data on a particular topic with a view to developing a greater understanding. The information is also hooked up to OpenStreetMap. For instance, there is a data expedition taking place this weekend related to the global garment industry. This has grown out of an earlier examination of the industry following the collapse of a factory in Bangladesh earlier this year. The earlier session was driven by a desire to highlight poor safety standards and working conditions. It strikes me that this is the kind of project that we could look at utilising Wikidata for. Projects like this could be used to populate Wikidata, too. I wonder if there's anyone out there inspired by this kind of project and has ideas about how we could do something similar. If you're interested in taking part in the data expedition, you can do so remotely. It takes place from 18 October to 20 October and you can see full details here.(Sorry, I forgot to sign my post!) Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am interested, but I must admit I don't know enough about Wikidata to see how it might work in this context. Perhaps if there is anyone else interested we can discuss this in more detail off-wiki?Leutha (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this seems really suitable for Wikidata, which is primarily about structured, linked, data about specific entities and the relationship between them. It's not a generic home for any sort of stored information, in much the same way that Wikipedia isn't a repository for any sort of writing. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK - members survey

Dear all -

In October 2012 I ran a survey of our membership which had a bit of bumpy ride but did produce some useful information. This year I'd like to put more collective time into planning the questions, making sure we have a clear commitment to data protection and privacy in collecting and storing the data, and work together to get good response rates to the survey itself.

I've started a page to discuss our options here and maybe we can use this as an opportunity to channel some of the ideas that have been mooted in recent water cooler discussions into outcomes. Helpfully we have Thryduulf in the office with me today and we're going to start developing what we think are a useful series of questions but please get involved. I'd like to distribute the survey to all members alongside the members newsletter i.e. at the end of this month!

Thanks Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Bug report: Notifications in Monobook

Notifications appear behind the content

Notifications have now been switched on on this wiki, but they are not working properly in the monobook skin as they appear behind the content area of the page (I'm guessing a div). This doesn't happen on en.wp where I also use monobook so I don't know whether this is something that should be reported on bugzilla or not? Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WMUK T-shirts

On an IRC with the community several centuries ago there were calls for us to make some t-shirts that would be fun and specifically WMUK branded. With Wikimania coming and as we are running out of our current 'nice but a bit predictable' stock we wonder if anyone has clever ideas for the designs.

Here are some previous suggestions:

• Don’t revert me I’m a Wikimedian.

• WMUK - helping share the world’s knowledge

• Wiki loves monuments survivor

• My difs bring all the boys to the yard

• My friends went to edit Wikipedia and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

• [citation needed]

• You are free to reuse, remix and distribute this t-shirt

• CC-BY-SA

• Rule Britannica!

• Could have the first couple of paragraphs from the T-shirt article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tshirt

(Perhaps with ‘I edit wikipedia‘ on the back? JD)

• A picture of the WP logo: Ceci n’est pas un Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MagrittePipe.jpg

• Break the mold!

• I don’t like “Like”; I like “Edit”.

• Wikipedia, read by hundreds of millions, written by tens of thousands.

• Our mission “To make the sum of human knowledge available to all humanity” Wikipedia

• Ask me about Wikipedia

Feel free to add your suggestions. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Don't trust Wikipedia: Improve it!" Leutha (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I like this one! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I LOVE that one Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the others are a lot more pithy than that, and shouldn't it have a question mark where the colon is? Philafrenzy (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that one two. And keep the colon. A question mark would miss the point. Yaris678 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be a hit in Education circles. Well done, Leutha! --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the one that is "I don’t like “Like”; I like “Edit”." It would be good to have images on the T-shirt that look like they are from a screen (but are higher res than an actual screen dump). A possible alternative/varient would be more graphical. It has the two images and then a big red cross through the "like" and a big green tick next to the "edit". Yaris678 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My favourite is still the redux of Magritte I think. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cymraeg Mae dyfodol Cymru yn dy law (Transl: The future of Wales is in your hand! (Handheld pencil with “Wikipedia” written on it).

Template:Angen ffynhonnell (Transl: ‘citation needed’)

Wicipedia Cymraeg - Cefnfor Gwybodaeth! (Transl: WC - An ocean of knowledge)

And why not use any of these I created / adapted around 5 years ago: https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defnyddiwr:Llywelyn2000/Bwrdd_plymio

Our current pop-up says: Wicipedia - Byd o wybodaeth (Transl: A world of knowledge)

Wicipedia - yn RHYDD o’r diwedd! (Transl: WP - FREE at last!)

We can use an image of Rhys Ifans with bubble speak: Dw i’n Wici-Waci-Waciwr! (Transl: I’m a Wiki-Wacky-Whacker) All suggestions from Welsh Wikipedians. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Members registry not public?

Under another heading above it was suggested that the WMUK register of members is not public. Actually it is, and in fact anyone can view it, unless WMUK persuades the court that the information is not being sought for a proper purpose. The information can be found on the Companies House website here Leutha (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that many members would object to a list of members being published on-wiki. Many other charities make their members lists available on websites and I would have thought that membership is something to be proud of. --Fæ (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a timely reminder that the members are actually members of a company registered at Companies House, though I think I am right in saying that a full member list is not necessarily sent with every Annual Return. You can also get an officers report for any company for free here: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml using the WebCheck service. Interestingly, for Wikimedia UK this shows Alastair McCapra as a Director but not Secretary and a form TM02 having been filed on 3 October noting his resignation as Secretary. I suspect, however, that this is purely a company secretarial matter and all the officers of Wikimedia UK are now simply listed as Directors, regardless of their real position on the board. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. The Board decided to dispense with the role of Company Secretary, and that's what's been updated. The Land (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the position with the members list please? Is it filed with every AR, or if not how often? When was the last one filed? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Will need to get back to you on that! Bear with us... The Land (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. This does put a different perspective on the need to keep the membership list in the office up to date, since even if it is not filed with Companies House regularly, I assume that the Companies Act still requires it to be maintained accurately at all times, charity law too no doubt, and to be made available at any time in response to a valid request. (I am not planning on making any such request) Philafrenzy (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's really bad news. :-( I take it that the role has now been delegated to the office? If so, given how unsupported I was by the office when I was the company secretary, I have zero confidence in it being done well by the office. At the current time of WMUK's evolution, this really needs to be done directly by a board member rather than being delegated.

With regards the members list - this is only held by WMUK, and isn't filed with companies house. It isn't 'public' in the sense of being published online, and we've always steered towards keeping it private (and also towards avoiding it cross-linking to usernames) to protect members' personal information. I don't believe that there is any requirement to file it with companies house - rather, the requirement is to have it available for inspection at the registered office. See Part 8 Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 2006 for the full details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

+1, zero confidence. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mike is of course correct that we don't file the list of members at Companies House, and that we're not required to. We do of course hold a membership list, and if we ever received a request to inspect it we would comply with our obligations - I don't recall such a request having been received in the time I've been on the Board. We've never published the membership list online and I am not sure how doing so would square with our obligations under the Data Protection Act.

Regarding Company Secretary, Mike - yes, the tasks involved have been delegated, but you can be reassured that we have several Trustees who are just as vigilant as you were in making sure everything happens. Our annual report and accounts to 2013 were filed here in early October. The Land (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't link to user names as otherwise anyone on payment of the fee could discover the identity of every user who is a member. It also certainly should be maintained with the utmost scrupulousness as the Act makes clear that failure to maintain it accurately is an offense on the part of the company and every officer of the company who is in default. I don't believe it can be regarded as a private document. Has anyone run a test to see if it could be produced within the timescales required by law. I am not going to apply for it as I don't want to give Richard a heart attack but I assume our processes for adding or removing people are in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A minor clarification, the list of members is not verified in any meaningful way. Even the address is not verified and you could give any name, it does not have to relate to the membership payment method and never has been tied to a Wikimedia account name. In this situation I would expect anyone terribly worried about their on-line identity would pay for their membership under a pseudonym or several pseudonyms. For the member at least, I don't believe that would even break any law. I raised the issue many times in board meetings. --Fæ (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think you are correct that in English law a person can give themselves any name and that is not an offense in itself. It could cause considerable administrative problems in the office, however, and in paying subs so I think we must assume that most people have given their real name and address, I did. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is important that members and prospective members are aware that the list is available for public inspection with the proviso mentioned above. Whether a person uses a different name to that which they use in other aspects of their daily life is OK, however if someone registers in a variety of different names then that would be very problematic (20 votes for £100!). I would hope that WMUK has suitable processes in place to ensure that such abuses cannot occur. Leutha (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look through past minutes, I publicly objected to passing new unverified members several times in a row, even though I knew the rest of the board would simply outvote me rather than not processing memberships. The reason for this was to put a line in the sand at this significant risk of disruption and entryism. It is public knowledge that rather than £100, £25 worth of memberships would give anyone the ability to force a disruptive EGM (the meeting would legally have to be arranged, even if pointless) and it would probably only take this number to seriously change the outcome at AGMs using proxy votes (only a fraction of the current 220 members would actually bother to vote on any issue or election, a key reason why 220 is far too small a number of members and allowing memberships to decline over the past 2 years has been a serious failure of the CEO). The board has a duty to ensure more than £700,000 is wisely spent, and yet entryism leaves that money subject to a hostile take-over, including replacing the current board, closing down the charity or spending the money in a partisan way. The fact that the only reason against doing something about this risk over the past year was that it would create minor verification work for the staff, who were overworked and too busy, always seemed an incredibly weak one to me, especially as I always supported the idea of contracting out some of the administration.

This may seem far fetched, but consider the fact that WMUK only has 220 members and yet CIPR has 10,500. If CREWE wanted greater representation in WMUK and mentioned this in their members newsletter, it would not be surprising if suddenly we had 100 or 200 members who were partisan to the PR sector (neither staff nor trustees would have any means of being aware of this happening, they would only be congratulating the CEO for increasing membership numbers). This may even happen with purely benign intent and yet would remain a serious reputational risk for the charity as I doubt the FDC or the WMF would take kindly to funding an organization that had the appearance of a partisan membership. --Fæ (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Could I just say that the charity is very well aware of these issues which have been under active review by the board for some time prior to them being raised here. That active review is continuing. Discussing in a public forum potential ways in which a hostile take-over could be attempted does not help the board to minimize the risk of such an attempt being made. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Where else would you suggest these matters are discussed Michael? If this is too public then there needs to be somewhere private. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a good question, and I've opened an new thread about it, below: #A Water Cooler for members only?. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael, everything I have said here has been said in public on this wiki before (as well as in public off-wiki). It is a problem that should have been solved last year. I am surprised at your suggestion that somehow members should not be allowed to either know about this issue with the charity they are members of, nor be allowed to discuss it with each other. Neither should we be keeping problems like this a secret from the WMF or the FDC.

You may want to go back through the long history of minutes of the in-camera meetings and the related in-camera vote of trustees about this. I would have thought spending well over a year talking, consulting and listening to reasons from the CEO as to why all employees are too busy to take action, rather than finding a way to resolve this serious risk (such as contracting it out if everyone is too busy with more important work), would be far too long for even the slowest charity or much smaller charities than ours, especially in the light of the informal advice I passed on to the board from the charity's excellent lawyers (Stone King) way back in 2012. I hope you and the other newer trustees can implement real changes, and promptly, where I failed to do so. Change is long overdue.

If you want a quick fix, then I recommend the trustees announce a halt to all new memberships until a system of verification is agreed and in place. That way the risk of entryism would be zero, at least from new applications, and members and trustees can discuss the problem completely in the open without accusations against anyone creating risks by being open and transparent. It would have the benefit of putting significant pressure on the CEO to agree prompt and effective solutions. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Board looked at a couple of potential solutions for this at the July board meeting, and we didn't adopt any of them. It's my view (along with most of the Board) that any additional "verification" step would be offputting for prospective members, as well as an unnecessary administrative headache. I've never seen any advice that such a step is necessary, and in my professional experience of running membership schemes I have never even heard of a membership organisation which does anything like this. The Land (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to go back to Stone King and get your professional experience balanced with theirs, especially if you are personally taking a lead in advising the board of trustees to take no corrective or preventative action on this risk. Perhaps you can share my summary email from 2012 of the conversation I had with Stone King, with the new board members that have yet to see it? By the way, I am unsure that a vote with a result of 3:2 is best described as "most of the board", in fact I would say that was a difficult vote that the new trustees might want to re-visit and ensure they have all the viewpoints and evidence, especially in the light of your statement "never seen such advice" when it exists in my 2012 email. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure of how the present charity is set up in this regard, but I was involved with setting up Wiki Educational Resources, the first attempt at a UK chapter (sometimes described as Wikimedia UK 1.0). At that time we considered the possibility of a hostile takeover, and our attitude was that because the single biggest asset (by a long way) was the "Wikimedia" name that that was what needed defending. Accordingly everything was set up so that if a hostile takeover happened, the Wikimedia Foundation could quickly and easily revoke the right to use the name, meaning that the hostile board would be left with little more than a worthless shell. I can't remember if the impetus for this came from the Foundation or from the prospective chapter folks. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is an interesting point, however there are two massive differences between a hostile take-over of Wiki Educational Resources and Wikimedia UK, namely access to donated funds of nearly a million pounds and responsibility for employment of 9 people. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of charity law (and I accept I might be wrong) is that the board is prohibited from spending any donated funds in a manner contrary to the charity's objectives, which would render some protection (and if the money is spent furthering our objectives that isn't actually a bad thing). I suppose it is possible that a hostile board could change the objectives, but I don't know to what extent that would need to be approved by bodies such as the charity commission. Again IANAL, but I believe that employment law gives protection to employees such that they cannot be forced to act contrary to their terms of employment, and while I don't know the terms on which WMUK employees are hired it would not surprise me if they are required not to bring the organisation into disrepute or similar. That would provide a limited defence against a hostile board acting contrary to the charity's interests. The main point though was to make it an unattractive target or a hostile takeover. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 10:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael, by the way, I have raised a related question at Status of reports and some numbers underpinning the FDC application which you may wish to consider. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of membership approvals process

Michael, now I have had some time to check through the minutes of the July board meeting in conjunction with Chris' statement on this thread that no action is being taken or planned, I am having difficulty reconciling your statement here of "That active review is continuing". Given the history of board and CEO level discussions and related actions dates back well over a year, could you explain for the benefit of interested members the scope of the continuing review of membership verification, exactly who has been actioned by the board, and when the members will be able to read a public report of the outcomes of the review of this issue? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The review has been ongoing by email and the issue is likely to be raised at the December board meeting. Chris did not say that "no action is being taken or planned". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial clarification, though it would be useful for the members to openly know who has been actioned by the board and what the scope of this review is.

I note that a possible date of December to have another discussion, would make this a major risk that has been under discussion by the trustees for over 18 months, without any action, plan or committed resources that members have been informed about.

As for Chris' comment earlier in this thread, I made a reasonable paraphrasing I thought, however to avoid doubt, Chris stated "It's my view (along with most of the Board) that any additional "verification" step would be offputting for prospective members, as well as an unnecessary administrative headache" which to any casual reader indicates that the board has no intention to take any action on this, indeed there appears to be no action in the minutes of the last two board meetings. It is impossible for members to know the contents of unpublished emails between trustees, we can only form our opinion from the comments that trustees have made here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A Water Cooler for members only?

It has been suggested several times above that it would be useful to set up a 'private' water cooler, for members of the charity only, where members can speak openly and raise issues that are perhaps best not discussed in an entirely open forum. I am myself in two minds about that, and it would be good to have a discussion here. As I see it, there are pros and cons:

Pros

• There is nowhere else that members can discuss private issues of interest, nor internal or contentious issues that may not be easy to discuss openly in public. Having to ring the office is not always a good solution for a member who would like to start a quiet discussion.
• Members with concerns would be able to raise issues without contributing to what otherwise - to uninvolved readers - can easily come over as 'washing dirty linen in public' or 'navel-gazing'. Doing everything on a public forum can easily give the incorrect impression that the charity is more concerned about internal in-fighting than actually getting on with its mission.

Cons

• Transparency is part of the charity's mission, and we should not keep things confidential unless there are very good reasons to do so.
• The very existence of a closed discussion forum could and probably would generate suspicion, and provide fuel for conspiracy theories.
• Users with critical views to express may well not want them kept confidential, and may prefer to have an open discussion in a forum (here or elsewhere) where they might hope to garner non-member support. That could largely undermine the purpose of having a confidential forum.

I am sure there are more issues that I have not thought of. Comments and discussion would be welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We have long experience of closed wikis, they tend to be used rarely and only by small numbers of the groups they are intended for. If you consider the closed WMUK Board wiki, the closed OTRS wiki and the closed Chapters wiki as examples, they tend to be used as places to dump reference material, none is a good place to discuss any issue and are likely to disenfranchise those that are less wiki-passionate, in fact related open email lists tend to be far more popular. I'm not against an experiment, even if openness is at the heart of the WMUK values, however my expectation would be that few of the 220 members would join (after all only an average of 20 members ever write here) and even fewer would use it for anything. If we increase membership (the target for 2014 being 400), I would expect an even lower proportion to engage in closed wikis or closed email lists.

If the incentive here is to close down discussion of topics such as entryism for this charity, it should be noted that the board of trustees openly published minutes of their vote and discussion on this issue of membership verification. The general way membership functions or fails to function correctly for a public charity, should be a matter of public record as it is of distinct public interest. I struggle to think of any topic that would be of genuine interest to members that should not be discussed publicly that would not create equivalent problems if encouraged to be discussed on a closed forum, for example suspected instances of financial fraud or defamatory allegations that should not be made in any written forum. Especially in the light of the fact that members are effectively anonymous, and we would have no way of stopping any member copying discussions back into an open forum, nor could we take any legal action in such circumstances unless it were a criminal matter or libel. --Fæ (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No 'incentive' here from my perspective. I opened the thread as it is an idea that Philafrenzy has suggested several times, and it seems at the very least to merit discussion. But there are quite clearly serious 'cons'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I will give a fuller reply later but may I point out that it is hardly my original idea Michael. The chapter, and Jon in particular, have been worried for a long time about how the water cooler appears to the rest of the world including potential members and trustees, and I think several people including trustees and Jon have asked whether things raised here could have been raised in private. I am just stating the obvious which is that if this is too public, the only logical response is to make it more private. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, Michael. At the moment I would tend towards "no", for two reasons;

• It is useful and possibly important to have non-members looking at, and participating in, the kinds of issues that members discuss. For instance - a Wikimedian who's never quite got around to joining might see something that interested them, and add some useful comments, and then get more involved. Also, there are some people who have valuable input but have reasons for not joining: for instance because of professional reasons, or because they don't want to compromise their anonymity.
• Any shared space is vulnerable to abuse: if the frequency of negative interaction increases too much, people will start to avoid it and find other places to have conversations. This problem is worse in closed spaces which have fewer users. There was an example of this recently on a Wikimedia Foundation email list called internal-l, which used to include many Foundation staff and board members, chapter board members, and the like. Sadly, it became dominated by a couple of people sending shouty emails, a bunch of people unsubscribed, and it's now scarcely used. In general, more interaction, more positive interaction, and more community regulation of the shared space is more likely to make it successful, and these things are on the whole easier in the open.

But it would certainly be worth hearing more thoughts on this. The Land (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Some good points there, and in conjunction with Fae's point about the probable lack of engagement with such a forum I am also tending towards "no". More comments would be welcome, though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there are major disadvantages in protecting this page in some way or making it member only and I don't think that two water coolers would work or be necessary. There remains, however, a reason for having a page, perhaps little used, where members only may raise matters that are not suitable for a public forum and which need to be raised in writing with the membership as a whole in a confidential way. I acknowledge the point that such confidentiality is easily broken but that is not an argument for not having such a page.

The page could act as a sort of safety valve that would allow members to "whistle blow" to other members and act as an early warning mechanism for the board that there may be something that demands their immediate attention. It would also give members a choice, which they do not have at present, of how they raise matters with the chapter and the membership and remove the excuse that there was no alternative but to post here. I acknowledge the possible anti-democratic implications of, for instance, having important debates such as about CIPR there rather than here but it is desirable, I think, that members should be able to communicate with each other in writing and in private without having to go through an intermediary on the board or the staff, as we are currently encouraged to do. It is irrelevant that such a page may be little used. It ought to exist for its own sake, much like the emergency brake on a train. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

QRpedia Donation Update

The last thread on the announced donation of QRPedia to WMUK has now been archived, unresolved(see https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler/2013#QRpedia_update for the last discussion).

As of today, whois.com shows ownership of the QRPedia related domains as:

• qrpedia.org – Terrence Eden
• qrwp.org – Bamkin Family
• qrpedia.org.uk – Michael Peel, but with WMUK’s contact details(1)
• qrpedia.net - Wiki UK Limited
• qrpedia.co.uk – Bamkin Family

(1) It appears that qrpedia.org.uk has not been properly transferred to Wiki UK Limited, as qrpedia.net was. I have alerted him to the problem on meta.

Given that it is now more than a year since the first announcement of the donation, more than six months since the last announcement of the donation, three months since the WMUK prepared agreement was provided to Roger Bamkin for signature, and one month since WMUK Chair advised that the situation could not go on indefinitely, could a definite statement on this donation please be given? Please, clearly either decline the donation, or advise a date by which the donation will be resolved and the transfer occur – or of course, better still, an announcement could be made that the donation has been completed, and the domains transferred to WMUK. TheOverflow (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear TheOverflow, the transfer agreement has been signed by ourselves, Terence but not yet by Roger. This was discussed at the last WMUK board meeting in September and is in the hands of the trustee dealing with the matter. We would all like to be able to report a resolution to this and will do so as soon as there is one. Apologies for the delays. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. By what date to you expect this to be resolved? As I noted above, the Chair has previously advised that this cannot continue indefinitely, but without a date for resolution, it is, effectively, continuing indefinitely. Has the trustee responsible had any recent correspondence regarding when resolution can be expected? TheOverflow (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh how I wish I could say but in the hands of the trustee handling it.Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that is still Saad. From what I understand of the recent governance audit, the approach of using trustees to manage this sort of operational matter is to be avoided in future, and this will become wholly the responsibility and authority of the CEO. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)