Maybe I'm missing something, but this all seems quite overblown to me. He wasn't really editing for money, was he? He just happened to edit topics that bore a tenuous relationship to a government for whom he's consulting. Are all government workers enjoined from editing articles on sites around their government's jurisdiction? Powers ^T 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with LtPowers on this, but say that there are issues beyond Bamkin or QRpedia that ought to be addressed. BTW, Tony has done his usual great job writing up a very complicated subject.

What seems to be missing among all the hub-bub is any credible accusation that any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines were broken. With all the accusations flying around, if you can't come up with a possible broken rule, if you haven't gone through any Wikipedia process or dispute resolution procedure - if you've added to the hub-bub, I think you owe an apology to Bamkin.

The scariest part of all this is that the whole thing seems to be driven by outside "news sources" like Fox and by bloggers who don't seem to understand our rules. Wikipedia needs to be prepared for this type of misunderstanding (and likely real problems as well) in the future, e.g. openess by the Foundation to communicate with bloggers, explain our rules, etc.

I'm sure some folks will say I have a COI on this, e.g. I've done a QRpedia project. It's all trival stuff though and I'll fill in the details later.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tony – thank you for recognizing his work here. This was a fantastically convoluted topic to write up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it is to do with the fact that WMUK is a charity and held to higher standards than outfits that are not. Wikipedia rules are one thing; real-world rules are another. Roger mixed his roles as a charity trustee, an editor and a private consultant in a way that was widely seen as not consistent with the Nolan requirements that WMUK trustees have to sign up to. The first two are particularly important in this context: Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent. Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK. Given his role as a paid consultant, his actions were also widely seen as inconsistent with Wikipedia's own rules for conflict-of-interest editing (and Wikimedia UK's own Draft best practice guidelines for PR); for example, his user page did not disclose that he was a paid consultant for the government and tourist ministry of Gibraltar (a fact commented on in Spanish daily, El País), yet he took an active role as an editor in getting Gibraltar articles on the main page. Other PR consultants are told that they should just edit article talk pages. JN466 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Of course no public body has accused anybody of violating any charity laws, and the bloggers and Wikipedians who are referring to these laws IMHO are stretching things a bit. COI statements were made, the WMUK noted them and made board decisions based on them - according to, as far as I can see, common practice among charities. What part of the WP:COI guideline was violated? (chapter and verse please) The only possible violation of the Nolan rules seems to be "avoid any appearance of improper behaviour", but "appearance" is, in the final reckoning, in the eye of the beholder. So you've said in effect that you see this as a conflict of interest. I'll say that IMHO this possible appearance disappears, if you look at the situation closely. I do think that the situation could have been handled better by WMUK, and that a talk page disclosure would have been nice (though it isn't required by any Wikipedia rule). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first Nolan requirement is, "They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent." Unquestionably Roger's company, Victuallers Ltd, profits from the consultancy contract, and unquestionably, his status as a Wikimedia UK director will have been a material factor in his being hired. The arrangement did not avoid the appearance of improper behaviour, as evidenced by media coverage in El País, Le Monde, Frankfurter Rundschau and others, and he did place himself under obligation to an organisation that might seek to influence him in the performance of his role as a board member. I find this quite clear-cut. His resignation was absolutely necessary to protect the charity. JN466 20:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several aspects of the Gibraltarpedia project that I find troubling.

• Most concerning is the clear conflict of interest that Roger Bamkin had once he was hired as a consultant by Monmouth City Council Monmouthshire County Council. he stepped down as Chair of Wikimedia UK, but remained a Trustee. WMUK is a registered charity in the UK and must abide by a fairly strict guidelines as noted here. This is likely to jeopardize WMUK's status as a charity. If Roger offered to resign from the board when first hired as a consultant, the board erred in not accepting his resignation.
• I am uncomfortable that this is a project sponsored by the Tourism Ministry of Gibraltar rather than a partnership with an arts or cultural institution. The people who funded this project are using it to increase tourism. I have already explained the connection to media coverage, one which Roger is well aware of, based on the "I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment" comment on his LinkedIn page.
• I am uncomfortable with the fact that this project is being run in a very "non-standard" way, with the effect of duplicating the existing Wikipedia:Wikiproject Gibraltar, using an external domain name on its template, and being run as a contest which offers a trip to Gibraltar as the main prize.
• I am uncomfortable that this project and Monmouthpedia rely on a web site not controlled by Wikimedia UK or the WMF. The QR codes point to a site which directs them to Wikipedia now, but there is nothing to stop the owner of this domain from redirecting them elsewhere, asking the user to read an ad before redirecting, or even framing Wikipedia with banner ads. I am told negotiations for this domain have been going on for some months, but I do not understand how WMUK could support the project when the ownership of the domain was not settled.
• I am uncomfortable with the idea that having that many DYKs on any topic in such a short time frame is possible and that it took so long before someone raised the alarm.
• I am uncomfortable that Roger did not remove himself from any Gibraltar-related editing before it became an issue.

The media reports may have mistakenly focused on paid editing, but the lack of clear paid editing does not mean that all is well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mini COI statements: Over the course of a month or so (Jan-Feb), I helped contribute about 8 DYKs on Pre-Raphealite painters, as part of a small GLAM project. Bamkin helped with 2-3 of these, as did others. "Getting a DYK" is a good way to check your work - is it really up to standards? - and to get lots of feedback when it appears on the Main Page. The museum involved would probably have liked to move away from Rossetti and friends, but they didn't really have much to say about it. I also received DYK credit on one Gibraltar related DYK.

These mini COI statements are relevant to this discussion because the question will always come up "How far does a COI statement have to go?" COI standards differ greatly around the world, and we are a world-wide project. We need to have specific, enforceable COI rules, so that folks will follow them. This means a policy, not a guideline. As far as I can tell, Bamkin followed all the rules as they are now written. But we could use other more clear rules, and even have COI declarations mandated in one specific place (e.g. on the user page, and/or article talk pages). If we don't, there will be many more "this is sorta near the borderline" type of accusations - to the detriment of our editors and of our reputation as a whole. In short, we need to protect ourselves and our editors from this sort of nonsense by having a policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a minor correction - there's no such authority as "Monmouth city council". You mean Monmouthshire County Council, which is planning to extend the Monmouthpedia initiative to other parts of its area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've corrected it above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern about this situation is the effect on Wikipedia's reputation for independence and neutrality of being seen to be in bed with a marketing organization. Previous GLAM joint ventures with museums and the like have not raised any problem, because their aims agree with ours - to make information freely available. This is different, because the partner organization's stated aim is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia... effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost". One reason we do not take advertisements is that it might be perceived that our editorial content could be influenced by a wish to please, or not to offend, the advertisers. There is exactly the same risk here. The Gibraltar Chronicle reported that "the people from Wikipedia UK" had reassured them that "edits by those who did not have Gibraltar's best interests at heart" could be reverted; it is explained that this reassurance was about vandalism, but will the Spanish read it that way?

Even if every article produced by a collaboration is beyond reproach, we should be concerned at the effect on our reputation of the blaze of publicity announcing a joint venture with a commercial or political organization. Consider possible press releases:

• "Wikipedia in joint venture with Derby Museum" - no problem
• "Wikipedia in joint venture with Ministry of Truth, Republic of Totalitaristan" - disastrous

We can argue whether "Wikipedia in joint venture with Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism" is or is not too far down this slippery slope, but it is disquieting that we have been organized into this position by one or two users, not even by a Chapter (Wikimedia UK say this is not their venture). I believe, and have proposed at WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations, that some form of advance approval is needed before an individual, or even a Chapter, can commit Wikipedia to a relationship which may give rise to publicity suggesting either that we endorse the other party's aims or that they may influence our content. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to see the discussion moving away from Paid Editing - which is how the press sold the "story." AFAIK, there wasn't any paid editing.
• The accusations now focus on UK charity law. I have little or no expertise in this area, and doubt others here have any as well. I'd want to hear from somebody who does have some expertise before saying there was anything wrong.
• Policy questions are what really matter here to me. Should we actually have a paid editing policy (to avoid similar nonsense in the future)? A collaboration policy? Stricter rules for COIs at chapters? Perhaps a code of ethics for firms or people who consult in areas involving Wikipedia, but who don't actually edit? Any movement in these areas would IMHO avoid nastiness in the future. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Smallbones, as far as we could tell, no one has been paid to edit—not directly. And paid editing is permitted on en.WP anyway. The problem arises from the enormous loopholes in the DYK process, including this quid pro quo (QPQ) system they use to drum up more reviews—it invites editors to act in concert in the reviewing process, so who would expect this kind of thing not to happen? It's been going on, intermittently at DYK, for some time. While the DYK stuff here was a bit naughty, we should be embarrassed that the rules encourage it, and should fix the DYK process. Like WMUK's failure to deal with CoI, despite Roger's entreaties, the problem is systemic. Tony (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly hope the remainder of the WMUK Board is paying attention here. Their failure to accept Roger's resignation when it was tendered is a good part of the reason this became such a big deal, and when they finally accepted it the issue immediately started to cool down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignoring the debate about this project, I'm concerned about the article's statement that "However, a member of WMUK has told the Signpost he believes the board is naive about conflict of interest, and that all chapters and the foundation need to learn lessons from this scenario. It is not good enough, he said, to disclose potential conflicts and to have COI policies if people in leadership positions don't understand COI." Why is this person not named? This is hardly an out-there opinion, and I'm not seeing a reason to publish what is after all fairly serious criticism of people without it being properly attributed so that readers, and other members of WMUK, can evaluate it properly (Eg, is the person who's being quoted in any position to make an informed comment on this topic, or did they join WMUK last week? Are they in good standing, or are they a crank - we have no way of knowing). As a general comment, the article mixes reportage with opinion, and is of low quality - I'm not at all convinced its a balanced story on this issue given this quote and the writer inserting his views into the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I insert my views into the article? That is what I've done on this talk page, as any editor may do. But the Signpost's editor in chief would think poorly of editorialising in "News and notes". Could you refer your allegation to him, please? On the matter of the WMUK source, I can assure you he/she is not "a crank", has been a member for some years, and is a respected member of the movement. I will not reveal sources where they speak on the record only on the understanding that they won't be named. This is common journalistic practice; we try to minimise it, but this is not always possible or desirable. And if by "hardly an out-there opinion" you mean that it's an unusual opinion, perhaps you might speak to a few people in the know and read Tango's blog, linked in the story. (The anon source is not Tango.) Could you justify your allegation that the article is "of low quality"? Tony (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes:

• Given that it's generally considered unacceptable to include criticisms of living people from anonymous commentators in BLP articles, why is it acceptable here? On what grounds did you choose to run with this criticism while not attributing it? - this was your decision, and not the decision of whoever it is you're quoting (who you could have left out of the story). I've seen several members of WMUK publicly criticise what's taken place here, so there appear to be no good grounds for using this instead of someone who was willing to put their name to criticism. I note the New York Times policy on the use of anonymous sources (which is available about halfway down the page here) generally frowns on the use of such sources ("The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers newsworthy and reliable..."), as does the BBC ("Sometimes information the public should know is only available through sources or contributors on an 'off-the-record' or anonymous basis"). The Signpost obviously isn't the NYT or BBC and different views exist, but the basic principle seems eminently sensible, especially given WP:BLP applies here.
• In regards to inserting your views, the article includes non-neutral wording such as "This appears to be confirmed by the fact that by 30 June, Roger had already offered his resignation to the board twice, clearly perceiving that there might be a COI in his emerging extra roles." (clear cut opinion; you're interpreting the actions of people and arguing that whoever your unnamed source is is correct as a result), "A single diff, then, is evidence that the problem is systemic" (you're clearly passing judgement on the WMUK board with this), and "That the problem might be systemic resonates with recently blogged complaints" (ditto; this is casting judgement and placing emphasis on one side of the argument - which just so happens to be the side you've previously come down on). Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by Tony1. I think I speak for all Signpost staff when I say that criticism of our methods and writing is welcome if it's well-reasoned and balanced. To take your main points in turn:

• "it's generally considered unacceptable to include criticisms of living people from anonymous commentators in BLP articles, why is it acceptable here?"

  This is neither a biographical article nor a Wikipedia article, but a news story, and for very good reasons is of a quite different genre (its purpose, to start with, is very different, although the notions of balance and fairness are shared in common with WP articles).

• "On what grounds did you choose to run with this criticism while not attributing it? - this was your decision, and not the decision of whoever it is you're quoting (who you could have left out of the story)."

  Yes, it was absolutely my decision to use one source I came across, without sending out rafts of emails to WMUK members I knew were probably critical, which would have been uncool and difficult to achieve in the tight timeframe. SP stories have a deadline, unlike WP articles—an article like this takes a huge amount of work and is usually done under time-pressure, and I doubt I'd have found a WMUK member to speak on the record and be named. Thank you for quoting the BBC's policy, which is similar to my own understanding of standard journalistic practice ("Sometimes information the public should know is only available through sources or contributors on an 'off-the-record' or anonymous basis"). I stand by the quoting of an unnamed source on this occasion and reject the censure.

• "the article includes non-neutral wording such as 'This appears to be confirmed by the fact that by 30 June, Roger had already offered his resignation to the board twice, clearly perceiving that there might be a COI in his emerging extra roles.'".

  Please take a look at the diff again. If you draw different conclusions from it, you're welcome to present a detailed set of reasons here. Roger Bamkin certainly didn't take issue with the interpretation when I read out the text to him on the phone before publication. The phone call lasted for nearly an hour, but again, for good reasons you'd probably accept if were able to tell you, some of it was off the record.

• "That the problem might be systemic resonates with recently blogged complaints" (ditto; this is casting judgement and placing emphasis on one side of the argument - which just so happens to be the side you've previously come down on)".

  It does indeed resonate with Tango's points, and I believe it was reasonable to point this out (to me, it's self-evident; but you're welcome to analyse it differently). Please note that the article quotes much harsh criticism that was directed at Roger Bamkin (some of it retracted in private, but I'm not at liberty to disclose the details); the story also quotes two substantial paragraphs of text published by the WMUK board, including from its press release. Somewhere, the story needed to show that the WMUK board was making serious errors of judgement, too. That's what I call balance, rather than coming "down on" one side, as you accuse. I stand by that interpretation of the diff and of other evidence presented in the story. Tony (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see here... Commons is adding more than 9,000 files a day, by my math. Where are they coming from? How are they being monitored? Carrite (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are coming from users, who upload them. They are monitored by volunteers like you and me. Powers ^T 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a file every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, every day. It's physically impossible to monitor that amount of content. Further: I suggest a substantial fraction of this material are being sucked off of image sites by bot. What percentage is bot-driven and what is the mechanism for ensuring that claimed copyright clearance on these image sites matches reality? Carrite (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question about the bot ratio. My guess is the mechanism is WP:AGF, otherwise known as "fingers crossed" or "whistling in the dark". --JN466 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the math off the top of my head, but I do know that commons uploads aren't evenly distributed ... a large number of commons uploads come in batches all at once, i.e. all the pictures from the National Archives, etc. A list of many of these projects can be found here. These are "pre-checked" in a way because they are all from a museum or cultural institution. The rest are indeed from users uploading photos. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia receives new articles at an even greater rate. Are those also "physically impossible" to monitor? Powers ^T 13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Wikipedia has a much greater number of active users than Commons, but that is beside the point. I have several times suggested that allowing anyone to upload images to Commons and having them immediately available for reuse without any kind of vetting is a model that has several obvious flaws. I have been told that it would be "impossible" for all of those images to be reviewed before they are made available. I can only conclude that the WMF is not serious about its stated (and legal) commitment to copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exact numbers, but from what I understand there are maybe a dozen files removed each year based on "take down orders." To me that suggests that there is no crisis here. Does anybody have numbers on other websites? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably get a dozen copyright violations deleted per year as a result of deletion requests I file on Commons. Dozens of files are deleted on a daily basis as copyright violations. "Take down orders" is a silly metric to use unless you believe that copyright violations only matter if someone complains. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One complaint for every, say, 250,000 uploads is remarkably low however you look at it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not low when orphaned or poorly linked commons pictures are rarely seen by anyone. I rarely see commons in Google image search results, for whatever reason. Are they NOINDEXed? Gigs (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last few months have seen a dramatic improvement in the upload process at Commons which can now handle batches of fifty images. That and the Wiki Loves monuments program are probably big parts of that latest million. As for monitoring new uploads, there is a whitelisting system so presumably new images by trusted users probably get little if any checking with most of the checking on the non-whitelisted uploads. I don't know if we actually have a big problem there, I've tagged a handful of images for deletion but they were a borderline issue. But if people are worried there is an easy solution, go there and check a random sample of uploads yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Approximately 55,000 of the last million images were created and uploaded by my bot from CC-licensed statistical data: commons:Category:Images_using_data_from_the_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics. Nobody needed to check their copyright individually. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]