Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

*We can confirm that Roger Bamkin, an ex-Director of Wikimedia UK, is one of two individuals who continue to provide advice on the production of the QR codes and training for volunteer contributors to Gibraltar's Wikipedia site. These two individuals were also involved in Monmouth's Wikipedia proj

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Unfortunately Fiona is not really able to do this at the moment. I'm going to help her contact them (as her husband) and make the corrections. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registe

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I'd get back to the guy, and ask him to make the necessary corrections. It's not paper, and he's already realised that Gibraltar is not an island. :) Andreas On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM, User Panyd wrote: > I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person > to talk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is *actually doing* - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himsel

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 20 September 2012 17:51 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin Here is a video of a presentation openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK: http

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Here is a video of a presentation openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM Quotes: "Can we help put Bristol on the global map longer term, that's why we want to talk to you today." [3.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 20, 2012 4:27 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, James Farrar wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: >> > >> > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has be

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 20 September 2012 16:19, James Farrar wrote: > And let's say Roger does resign: who's the next target on your list? Steve Virgin appears to be their next target. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, James Farrar wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > > > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible > to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided. > > For someone in the public eye, no matter h

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

: 20 September 2012 16:20 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impr

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided. For someone in the public eye, no matter how properly they behave, a person with an axe to grind can always s

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

ll > > -- > *From:* Nicholas Jackson > *To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 September 2012, 15:43 > > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin > > On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

one's head.    Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell From: Nicholas Jackson To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 19 September 2012, 15:43 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion > from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of > paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people > how to use Wikipedia, what villain

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 20/09/2012 02:46, Chris McKenna wrote: In the messages I've read (not all), it has been stated at least twice that the process transferring this to WMUK (i.e. exactly what is being asked for) is ongoing, and has been for some time (held up by complicated legal issues, rather than a lack of de

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

A response to this from the office. I hope that nobody who has expressed genuine views about a matter they find of concern, and who does it in a polite and measured way, would ever feel cold shouldered or excluded from WMUK activities discussions or events. This is a form of bullying and if it h

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I've only been half following this, but On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l: - My understanding is that qrpedia.org is still under individual control, rather than chapter control. Is that correct? If so this is a bit problematic, and it

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html ---o0o--- Roger's been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list (which is publicly archived): http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-Sep

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

In-Reply-To: > It has made me unpopular; I get an appreciable amount of hate mail > and > anonymous threats. Following the Fae incident this ramped up > somewhat. I > get cold shouldered by others in our community because I am > critical. Does no one else think that this comment by Tom M shoul

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Tom, Roger has clearly stated already in this thread: "The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al)." You really can't tell him th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Roger, you're not getting it. Gibraltar are paying you to help get lots of good articles about their country on Wikipedia. When you edit articles about Gibraltar, as you have been doing, then regardless of what time it is when you do it or your motivations for doing it, you are doing your paid job.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Tom, I'm not criticising you. I very often edit wikipedia to de-stress or whilst trying to resolve more difficult problems. The problem of demarcation can be a tricky one as to which task you are doing if you resolve one problem whilst doing another. If its a pure 9 to 5 job then it can be simpler,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 20:46, Roger Bamkin wrote: > Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email > immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually. > > Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and > facetious. However if I am creating or editt

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually. Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and facetious. However if I am creating or editting Wikipedia articles then you can be sure that I am not

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 15:33, Roger Bamkin wrote: > This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do > have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points I'm afraid being busy doesn't excuse you from being accountable. While you may not value this conversation, if

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Hi Nick, Nice to meet you. What a pleasure it is to meet someone who assumes that we all trying to do something clever and difficult in the best possible way. Maybe you'd like to stand for the board? Thanks for making me smile and appreciate that some people do appreciate what we do. As David say

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard wrote: > On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > > It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just > > didn't know about it. > > > You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be > corruption, unles

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton wrote: > It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just > didn't know about it. You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption in the real

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 15:43, Nicholas Jackson wrote: > On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> I would ask that you resign from the board. >> > > Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited > Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attend

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

> > This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do > have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points > We all have other things to do. I am trying to shine some light on an obscured situation as it concerns me. The ethics of what we do is important. I don't

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 15:43, Nicholas Jackson wrote: > I suppose my question is: does this sort of politicking actually serve the > aims of Wikimedia UK at all, and if not could it perhaps stop soon? This would require Wikipediocracy not to be a haven of trolls, nutters and stalkers whose missio

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I would ask that you resign from the board. > Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attending a couple of absolutely splendid local outreach events I was

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points On 19 September 2012 14:37, Thomas Morton wrote: > Hi Roger, > > Thanks for responding to some of the points! > >> I realise that this is a very interesting debat

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Hi Roger, Thanks for responding to some of the points! > I realise that this is a very interesting debate but do try and remember > that these facts that are being discovered are public knowledge. The > project was announced at Wikimania, no less, with a video that set out the > projects plans an

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people how to use Wikipedia, what villainy and wickedness! I'm not surprised that Roger isn't dignifying

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Roger, I would ask that you resign from the board. As it is, it will look as though your directorship in WMUK is a factor in enabling you to get consultancy work for yourself, your company and your associates, and I can't see how either the appearance or the reality of that would be compatible wit

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Name change of my user account? That is an odd request. I did look at the policy and it says Talk to the user If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account w

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&curid=3590&diff=28844&oldid=28362 In this edit (which I believe is by Roger while logged out), it is claimed that there is no paid editing involved with Roger's work on Gibraltarpedia. Roger, if that is the case, could you please

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 19/09/12 07:59, Doug Weller wrote: I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in contravention of our Username policy on promotional names - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not as

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in contravention of our Username policy on promotional names - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not ask for a change of name, but given the ci

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself: https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422 Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Hmm, well this is getting Murkier still. Have people violated these principles. Someone on Jimbo's talk linked to this article: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440 Which: a) Identifies Roger as WMUK director with implication he is acting in official capacity b) Says that Gibra

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17/09/12 23:23, rexx wrote: He's mistaken. There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org and qrwp.org . Commentators also need to differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the domain names

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 18 Sep 2012, at 11:19, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 17/09/12 20:34, Chris Keating wrote: >> and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of Wikipedia-linked QR >> codes in future. > > > This issue has always been on my mind. The use of a code requires a method to > decode and prod

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17/09/12 20:37, Chris Keating wrote: To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org . I like the w

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17/09/12 20:34, Chris Keating wrote: and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of Wikipedia-linked QR codes in future. This issue has always been on my mind. The use of a code requires a method to decode and produce a result. In general terms, QR Codes resolve to *text* *strin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Therefore "Make it so" Jean-Luc Picard Gordo On 18/09/12 08:55, Jon Davies wrote: Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents. On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly > wrote: Whilst there may be no pre

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Indeed - I think it is even mentioned in one of our many governance documents. On 18 September 2012 08:52, Gordon Joly wrote: > > > Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity > (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees? > > > http://w

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 18 Sep 2012, at 09:52, Gordon Joly wrote: > Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity > (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees? > > http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm The Nolan Prin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Whilst there may be no precise misdemeanor, can we assume that our charity (Wikimedia UK) follows and applies the Nolan Principles to all Trustees? http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm Gordo ___ Wikimed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

*sigh* caught in the reply-issue On 18 September 2012 00:04, Thomas Morton wrote: > On 18 September 2012 00:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton >> wrote: >> > OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred >> to or >> > introduced a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton wrote: > OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred to or > introduced as a WMUK project. > > (e.g. this Wikimania video: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg ) > > Obviously that is a concern

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred to or introduced as a WMUK project. (e.g. this Wikimania video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg *)* * * Obviously that is a concerning facet that needs to be cleared up also. Tom On 17 S

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

He's mistaken. There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Commentators also need to differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the domain names. WMUK's interest in QRpedia is in finding ways to ensure that the service

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Clearly what is needed, with some urgency is: * A clear statement from Roger as to what renumeration he is receiving, and what agreements he has in place with the Gibraltar tourist board etc. This will go to clearing up the confusion. * A clear statement about WMUK's intended involvement with thi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating > wrote: > >> >> I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT >>> License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use >>> the QRpedia technology too

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, "Chris Keating" > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been > raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated. > > > > 1. "Paid editing

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > > Dear all, > > Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated. > > 1. "Paid editing" > To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific W

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating wrote: > > I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT >> License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use >> the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to >> use it whenever

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

> I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT > License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use > the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to > use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights > h

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Dear all, Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated. 1. "Paid editing" To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing". We have never actively

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

- > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:04:58 +0100 > From: werespielchequ...@gmail.com > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin > > I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

- From: joseph seddon Sender: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:49:25 To: Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

From: werespielchequ...@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit. But I would appreciate a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Doug Weller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, > leveraging > > a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible. > > > > Take coverage like this article here: > >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit. But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my understanding of QR

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging > a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible. > > Take coverage like this article here: > > http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Jimbo has commented on his talk page: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I assume that people are finding the details out online, and they're then assuming that we're the best people to contact (confusion between 'Wikimedians from the UK' and 'Wikimedia UK'). As far as I know, no-one's been given our contact details in relation to the project, and the site at http://en.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17/09/12 12:48, Andreas Kolbe wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton mailto:thomas.dal...@gmail.com>> wrote: Accidentally sent offlist... Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Accidentally sent offlist... > Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list. Is it possible to change the default behaviour of the Reply button back? It

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Accidentally sent offlist... On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies wrote: >> Good morning Tom. >> >> Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient >> by their very nature but in answer to your specific question: >>

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Good morning Tom. Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient by their very nature but in answer to your specific question: The board agreed that we would be happy to supply 'learn to edit' booklets and and some office support. In reality this means referring any ca

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

+0100 From: gordon.j...@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Jimbo has commented on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, "Richard Symonds" wrote: > > it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets, nothing more. The resolution in the minutes is a lot broader than that. If the intention was just

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Jimbo has commented on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK Andreas So nice to agree with Jimbo. Paid work a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets, nothing more. Anyone worldwide can ask for them, and we'll send them out by post to anyone who wants them for a 'learn to edit' session. That's perfectly

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

Jimbo has commented on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wik

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 16/09/12 20:02, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of >> Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid >> editing. >> > And in no way conflicts with his legal status as a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On 16/09/12 20:02, Thomas Dalton wrote: Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid editing. And in no way conflicts with his legal status as a Trustee? Gordo ___ Wi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

I don't see any problem with Roger's position. In the one case you cited below, Roger has trespassed a DYK rule, was shouted at for violating the rule rather than his own conflict of interest, and retracted his own review. Paid editing and editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden by W

[Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

It has come to my attention that Roger Bamkin has been editing articles on Gibraltar: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Victuallers&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 and nominating and reviewing them a