Talk:Gibraltarpedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should Gibraltarpedia be in Wikipedia's mainspace?

In view of the suggestion that the article should be deleted from the mainspace as it is not "notable" (see here), I would like to point out that I came across the project while looking for news items in the area of culture and cultural institutions (just as I came earlier across the Monmouthpedia project which is based on similar principles). At the time of Gibraltarpedia's launch, several Gibraltar newspapers and web news sources documented its importance, also citing ministerial support and stressing the involvement of cultural institutions. I would argue that if the project had simply been a web development initiative of a library or a museum, it would also have deserved coverage (see, for example, Norwegian Year of Cultural Heritage 2009). Just because it happens to be related to Wikipedia, coupled perhaps with the fact that the project's website [1] links to a Wikipedia project page, doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion or any less notable. In any case, the presentation of a Wikipedia project in the WP Project space is designed to attract participation, not to document a development. As Gibraltarpedia could prove to be of worldwide (or at least African and European) significance if it achieves all its aims, the project also deserves coverage in the mainspace. I would be interested to hear whether others share this view. --Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As a government project I think it deserves mainspace coverage, I concur.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose in mainspace. It is an unfortunately named combination of Wikipedia and the aims of Gibraltar's tourism agency. If Gibraltarpedia were a separate wiki, and had received public notice sufficient to meet WP:GNG, then I would have no problem with a mainspace article about that wiki. The other 5 reasons are as follows:

1. This is a Wikipedia project, it belongs in project space only, as WP:Gibraltarpedia. We in general do not discuss Wikipedia internal activities or projects in mainspace. To do so would be WP:PROMO, which we do not allow in other articles in mainspace.
2. We do not discuss Wikipedia policies in mainspace, even in the inclusion criteria suggested in WP:LIST. To do so would be enormously distracting to the readers of articles which are supported in independent, reliable sources.
3. As a mainspace article, it is required to meet WP:GNG. The sources cited are not all financially and editorially independent of either Wikipedia or Gibraltar. The sources are all on or around the same date, meaning that they are echoes or close paraphrases of a single Gibraltar government and a single Wikipedia press release; this is nothing more than WP:EVENT coverage. It does not meet WP:GNG, which requires coverage over time.
4. We should err on the side of being an encyclopedia, isolated from promotional activities even of itself. Wikipedia should steer clear of the appearance of being a collaborator in promotion or public relations. We should not be press release outlet or gatherer, and not a national public relations agency, and not a government mouthpiece. It is the appearance of impropriety brought on by collaborating or engaging in promotion, or allowing paid editing of articles, or allowing publicity-related editing of articles, which causes damage to Wikipedia's credibility. Damage to Wikipedia's credibility has been done, and continues to be done, and it doesn't go away just because one might say it. People remember.
5. Projects which promote Wikipedia should only be referred to in (rare) public top banners. That is their traditional, and proper, (if any) place.

IMHO, this project belongs listed among a public list of public-related Wikipedia projects; perhaps Wikipedia in culture.

Further, IMHO, this project should be shut down, disavowed, and salted as expressly against the stated aim of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia documenting, but not a tool of, any external entity or individual.

--Lexein (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

I'm making an edit request here, rather than editing myself, because I work for Wikimedia UK: so there's a conflict of interest. The phrase "Professor Clive Finlayson...has been collaborating with the Gibraltar Tourist Board and Wikimedia UK." is not accurate. I think the source website is confused, as although the project is run by a WMUK board member, it's not run or funded by WMUK, and doesn't come under our umbrella. Professor Clive Finlayson is involved in Gibraltarpedia, but no-one has been collaborating with Wikimedia UK: rather, they've been collaborating with Wikimedians from the UK, a key difference! Wikimedia UK haven't made a decision about their involvement in this project yet. Don't get me wrong, it's a great project: but it's not accurate to say that it's a Wikimedia UK project, because it isn't :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the half-sentence in question. For the future, bear in mind that we have {{request edit}} which seems a closer fit for this kind of request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing project

This is quite frankly astonishing. I'll just drop this link here. Even as cynical as I am, this one really surprises me. [2].17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is all very surprising. I suppose we should go carefully through all the articles now being written about Gibraltar to see how objective they are. I am particularly concerned about some of the historical accounts. Here it would be interesting to see whether the Spaniards would agree with the presentations. I'm not too sure how we should take this forward. --Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipediocracy is an especially good source for anything - even for talk pages. I do wish that Victuallers would make a complete statement on this - but perhaps that takes some time. I also wish that there was a single page where this could be discussed civilly and in some detail. It does have strategic and policy implications for the entire Wikimedia movement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally it doesn't concern me the paid editing as such, but yes, if articles have been tampered with as tourist promotions then yes that's concerning. But in regards to the paid taboo thing, I'll admittedly say that I detest the general attitude on wikipedia to paid editing which is constructive and improving wikipedia as a resource. There is a huge difference between paid advocacy/PR on wikipedia by editing biographies and such by "cherry picking" and adding false information to make them sound better than an editor who might happen to paid for constructive project developments on wikipedia. Why shouldn't prolific editors be rewarded financially every now and then for building wikipedia? Basically I look solely at the product, what victualliers/Roger is doing is of great benefit to wikipedia as a resource and if emulated in other cities could potentially vastly increase wikipedia. I'm of the opinion actually that the general attitude of the foundation on here towards financial and commercial gain and the taboo which exists around it actually worsens the problem and believe it is actually stalling our growth. If the foundation just relaxed and let paid editing be more upfront and more centrally organized and financed more project like a monthly article of the month competition with some financial/voucher reward wikipedia could potentially massively improve and attract new editors. Sure there are many who disagree but that's how I feel about it. So long as the content is neutral and within guidelines and a net plus if really shouldn't matter how or why it got there. So while it would be very disappointing to find evidence tourist promotion in Gibraltar articles I'm of the opinion that overall the net positive massively outweighs any possible negative aspects of it. The articles would not go through DYK if they were blatant promotions, and are clearly of encyclopedic benefit to us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I havent read the wikiocracy article, but I can guess its content. I don't read that kind of stuff as that site has upset some of my fellow wikipedians and I don't intend to upset myself. However it is important to be open. I don't think its any secret that John Cummings and I are being paid by the Gibraltar government to deliver training and to create QRpedia plaques and to show them how to label up their collections. Thats what enables us to travel there and to allow John to be there training for the next eight weeks (at least).

The idea that we are removing bias in wikipedia is silly. If I thought that was happening then we would stop immediately. So can I see some evidence that it is not happening? Now, one of the most important aspects of Gibraltar is the cruise ships. I remember that Anne wrote a DYK hook that focussed on the explosion and death of a worker very near the cruise ship terminal. That hook ran on the front page and it is still an important part of this article. If I wanted to create bias then I'd polish this detail away. I'm pleased to see it hasn't changed and the story is excatly as Anne wrote it. I am ignoring a lot of the silly debates (elsewhere) but I'm happy to answer simple questions here that assume good faith. Victuallers (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My advice would be to ignore both wikiocracy and wikireview. Wikiocracy is always hyper sensitive over paid editing. I have no problem Victuallers with you being paid over this whatsoever, so long as you aren't asked to blatantly endorse material with it intended purely for tourism.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, of course, the easiest way to start easing my concerns would be to release the details of your and John's contract with the Government of Gibraltar, Roger.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it was a bit heavy on the hype and read like an ad. I put on an "Advertising" template and deleted two sections which were mostly PR material. A bit more trimming down might be in order, but I'm done for now. --John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been through the whole thing, trying to make it less promotional. I think it might also help to cut back further on the details of the launch but I've left it there for now. Once details of a real application (on the lines of Monmouthpedia evolve), the focus could quickly change. --Ipigott (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

“The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.” [3]-- Clive Finlayson, a Gibraltar government bureaucrat. Who made these "guarantees?"Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-regulation is how wikipedia works. There is more than "an element" of it. This isnt a guarentee that no one will say anything bad, its a gaurentee that wikipedia has processes for handing this situation. Many people do not understand why wikipedia does not consume itself in vandalism - as you know - this doesnt happen. regards Victuallers (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cutting back on the launch info once the thing is running makes sense. We just went through something like that over at Better Place, the electric car battery swap company. They had a huge amount of hype and a modest number of cars and recharging stations. The article was reworked to stress the actual achievements and reduce mentions of the PR. PR itself is not notable, unless there are actual articles about the PR (not redistribution of it), as with Super Bowl ads. --John Nagle (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section?

There are now major news stories about the paid editing controversy:

• "Wikipedia contributors decry pay for posts" (Computerworld) [4]
• "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia" (CNET) [5]
• "Governments paying for Wikipedia edits?" (Foreign Policy (blog)) [6]
• "Wikipedia Brand Trust Erodes With PRikpedia, Gibraltarpedia Scandals" (BrandChannel) [7]

Should this article have a "controversy" section? At the very least, we should probably take a very hard line here on external links and cites to PR materials. --John Nagle (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And citation of tourism board websites as sources for Parson's Lodge Battery. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fox News. I would say a section on the controversy is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a "Controversy section" is due. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The story just hit Techdirt[8] and Slashdot.[9] --John Nagle (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Linked to original CNET story describing Bamkin as a PR consultant and adjusted text accordingly. Also referred to the entire effort as a tourism promotion, which cited articles say it is. But I didn't go all the way to adding a controversy section. --John Nagle (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is in El Pais:[10] There are quite a few " ¿Sabía usted " ("Did you know") -suggestions from the readers which are not exactly praising Gib. This Gibraltarpedia-scandal could trigger quite a backlash against Gibraltar. Huldra (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fox News has now also run the story. It's sufficiently public now that I have added a controversy section. Others are welcome to edit that section to ensure that it is "fair and balanced", to use Fox News's own slogan. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we can remove the "ads"-tag now, though; whith a controversy section in place. Or what do you guys think? Huldra (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The story just hit Slate[11] and The Register.[12]. The Register seems to have done some additional digging, and claims that Wikimedia UK's status as a tax-free charity may be at risk because of this.--John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK has just announced that Mr. Bamkin has resigned his position. [13].Bali ultimate (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This section seems to have exploded with reference bloat. Do we really need ten sources to cite a single sentence? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: resignation (break from Controversy section?)

(realized I was disrupting the #Controversy section? discussion - sorry --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, UK, but it's not enough. This does nothing to repair the damage done to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation. A public listing of every edit done, by whom, related even indirectly to Gibraltarpedia, including DYK promotions, should be published in a press release, with classification of each as non-controversial, promotional of Gibraltar, or self-promotional of Wikipedia. The Gibraltarpedia project itself should be, as I've said elsewhere, shut, disavowed, and salted, and all involved editors who contributed to promotion of either, should self-topic-ban for one year. The independence and status of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which documents, but does not serve, any entity or individual, must be firmly reasserted. --Lexein (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether Victuallers COI is wrong or not is not for me to judge but Lexein, are you seriously saying you'd like to see the twenty odd editors who have worked so hard and have taken out so many hours of their lives to contribute (positively, may I add) to Wikipedia should be discouraged from doing so? If so, that's the most outlandish interpretation of Wikipedia's aims I've read so far... IMHO the press have been ridiculously premature in reporting on this; especially for a national newspaper like El Pais, I mean, seriously... In any case I can honestly say I have seen no "sanitation" of the articles being created. An article reports how a man died following an explosion next to the cruise terminal and another reports on the government's controversial decision to demolish a site of historical importance to make way for affordable housing... This doesn't show Gibraltar in the best of lights now does it? But that's what happened and that's how Wikipedia shows it, as is. The article on Gibraltarpedia may well have read as an advert, probably because most of the sources available at the time were press releases. Therefore it may have been best to write the article at a later stage in the development of the project. However, it's seriously disheartening to read all these negative comments discrediting all the project's contributors from editors who haven't been involved and don't know the reality of how the project has been developing within Wikipedia. I'm sure the other contributors who have written some great articles will feel the same... --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your concerns have merit, but let me elucidate my position. Nothing against good-faith editors, but I am very strongly for publicly rehabilitating Wikipedia's credibility, right quick. I am a general and AGF inclusionist, but a specific PR deletionist; this is grounded in my strong belief that Wikipedia should document, but not serve, any entity or person. The public's perception of Wikipedia/Wikimedia's ability to police itself, and WMF/WP's overall credibility, has been damaged. Resignation is only part of the solution. A strong response is to publicly acknowledge that whether or not isolated individual policies or guidelines were broken, the whole thing stinks, and to stop it in its tracks. A weak response is not to acknowledge the stench, and pretend that a resignation is enough.

Please note that I said self topic ban, not self total ban. I also specifically did not mention reverting, because many edits, in isolation, seem to be innocent of any appearance of wrongdoing, and many articles, after a painstaking and annoying should-not-be-necessary-but-is-now review by uninvolved editors, may turn out to be bias-free. It is only in aggregate that the totality of recent actions stinks. Don't hate uninvolved editors - we have the ability to be the most objective, having nothing to either defend or attack in the articles in question. Personally, my only agenda is publicly re-establishing Wikipedia's a) independence from external influence, and b) credibility, by firm, bold action. I've been mocked for this, but in light of this publicity campaign, I am troubled by the lack of sociological data about Gibraltar, including crime rate, median income, tax haven status (what do RS say?), etc. Most articles about cities and countries address such sociological factors. Here, after all those edits, and all those new and expanded articles, no editors saw fit to mention them. I hope I have clarified my concerns. --Lexein (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you. However, you say "Wikipedia should document, but not serve, any entity or person." [sic] so please demonstrate where during the project's lifespan Wikipedia has served an entity or person relating to Gibraltar. I've seen none of this. When Clive Finlayson's commented on the removal of anything "nasty" in reply to a question from the press, he was referring to vandalism but somehow this has been construed to meaning the sanitation of articles of anything that may show Gibraltar in a bad light... No one has yet written about crime rates in Gibraltar, but look, it's on the to-do list and I hope that someone does! I did however write on capital punishment in Gibraltar. Not a past to be proud of, but it happened... We intend to write about everything that is notable on Gibraltar; the good, the bad and yes, the ugly! If people just let the project breathe a little, it'll develop to cover these topics too. As for uninvolved editors, I agree with you; I never said I hated them. I'm just concerned that the whole COI issue is tainting people's judgement on the project as a whole. By the way if you have an interest in crime, it would be great if you could start crime in Gibraltar! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. If anyone has any questions or concerns, by all means ask but please do not speculate!

I didn't see, and so was not commenting on, the public remarks to which you refer above. My own take, looking at dates in edit logs and discussions, is this, to answer your question:

• The sudden creation/expansion/DYKs of all those Gibraltar-related articles has the appearance of serving Gibraltar's presumed desire for more content accessible to tourists with QR codes.
• It is an uncomfortable coincidence of possibly innocent events.
• It is also pleasing the benefactor, innocent (enthusiastic volunteers are great!), or not (sense of obligation in the mind of a senior editor, or worse, seeking a goal of more articles for the QRcode plaques). It has an unavoidable risk of appearing not to be fully independent. An encyclopedia must, at its core, be, and appear to be, independent.
• Combined with the paid training of editors, it is a synaptic leap to the unhappy conclusions drawn by outsiders, and skeptical editors such as myself. Any PR person will remind us that appearance is reality.
• In this case, the order of events matters more than the senior editors imagined. If the articles had already slowly expanded, and no DYKs had been sought, then Gibraltar said, "Cool, we want to QRcode the nation!", my concerns would be largely, but not completely, addressed. Then, any consultation (paid or unpaid) would have been related solely to the creation of QRcode plaques to existing articles, a valid use and access of Wikipedia content, and could have been treated as a firewalled, non-conflicting activity. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

COI flag

Content of this article is apparently being minded (and sanitized) by an editor with an undeclared financial interest in this project. Please leave this flag up until the matter is addressed. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, Victuallers has never edited this article so I think it's safe to say the COI tag is out of place here... --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 23:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ad tag

I added the "advertisement" tag to the article as it currently appears to be promotional in nature. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, are you affiliated in any way with WMUK? If so, are you sure you should be edit warring in this article? Cla68 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigs on the wing (Andy Mabbett) does appear to have some form of business relationship with Roger Bamkin, who won the Gibraltarpedia bid from that country's tourism promotion board. [14].Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no business relation whatsoever with Roger Bamkin. Nor am I edit warring on this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My involvement with Wikimedia UK in no way precludes me from editing his article, which in any case is not about a Wikimedia UK project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your statement does not jibe entirely with Mr. Bamkin's conflict of interest disclosure to Wikimedia UK. Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. Perhaps I misunderstand what this bid is about? Any explanation appreciated. Either way, you appear to be far too personally close to Bamkin to be editing articles closely associated him. I recommend just using the talk page for now.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Until you answer questions or provide evidence about what "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett..." actually means (aside from the plain English meaning) I will not take your word for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to attempt to prove a negative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to be specific. "What does it mean that "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbet?" I see that in June [15] you wrote "Our bid, which would involve training communities of people to edit articles about their local area, the erecting QRpedia codes linking to those articles, was very well received, and we're through to the final which will take place on 18 June. If successful we will receive funds which will cover the cost of training sessions and the production of QRpedia plaques and stickers." How was this money distributed? It certainly seems like you and Mr. Bamkin did renumerated work together. and for some reason, Bamkin saw fit to mention it in his "Declaration of Interest." It's all very confusing.16:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Roger what he meant, as he wrote that, not I. To which money do you refer? I have not received a penny from, for or relating to Geovation (save that Wikimedia UK reimbursed my expenses, as one of their volunteers, to attend a related event in Cardiff, in accordance with their published procedure and subject to audit). I repeat: I have no business relation whatsoever with Roger Bamkin. Nor have I ever done "renumerated work" [sic] with him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the "advert" tag has reappeared. Which parts of the article allegedly appear to read like an advert? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It was written like a promotional fluff piece, so I think the tag is appropriate. Let's see what magic a crowd of volunteers can do in the next few days to address the promotional tone. If they succeed, we'll bring the tag down, and everyone will have won.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Though the tag is now gone) I was asking for specifics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

North African dimension section is written like a press release, for one. Training reads like a news report (and a press release). --Errant ^(chat!) 11:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither news reports nor press releases are advertisements. Still nothing specific; why is the tag back? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It was restored by User:John [16] for reasons that makes no sense to me. He hasn't substantiated it at all. See the section below. Prioryman (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

tourism promotion effort vs. collaborative project

Obviously it can be both, it just depends on who is collaborating exactly with whom, in what way, and for what. Either way, the lede is supposed to summarize information from the body of the text - which this lede does not do, nor is the nature of the project sourced.VolunteerMarek 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agreed, neutralised the text, and removed the tags. --John (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I just took it out for the second time. I would hate to give even the appearance of edit-warring here, but I think it is clear given the sources that this word is puffery. --John (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So are you seriously arguing that there is no collaboration involved? On what grounds? WikiProjects are collaborative by definition, are they not? Prioryman (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

By whose definition? Is it worth saying this? I don't think so. Isn't every single human enterprise a collaborative one? I've tagged the article as an advert based on this promotional language. I might change my mind if multiple third-party sources use this language. --John (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a non-collaborative WikiProject. Go and take a look at the project page. There are about 20 editors on the English Wikipedia alone, and more on other language Wikipedias, collaborating with each to produce (so far) several dozen new articles relating to Gibraltar. In what respect is that not a collaborative project? They are collaborating under its auspices. What more do you want? Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not listening to me. Read what I said again, please. --John (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did. You're wrong. Not "every single human enterprise [is] a collaborative one" - it could in theory be a solo project. The key feature of a project like this is that it's supposed to be a collaborative venture. That's why Victuallers has been over in Gib training people - so that they can contribute to the collaboration. If you omit the collaborative aspect then you're misrepresenting the nature of the project. Prioryman (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How would a solo Wiki work, exactly? Wouldn't it be a blog at that point? And wouldn't "The Gibraltarpedia project was jointly launched by Wikimedia UK and the Government of Gibraltar in July 2012" eliminate any misunderstandings along these lines anyway? --John (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant a solo WikiProject. Some of the lower-traffic ones are practically solo enterprises already. And no, your sentence wouldn't resolve the issue. Have you heard of the inverted pyramid and the Five Ws? Take a look at the diagram on the inverted pyramid article. You need to explain what Gibraltarpedia is before you go on to the detail about when, where and why. Your proposal appears to skip the what, which one would have thought is possibly the most important fact in the entire acticle. Prioryman (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems we disagree. As VolunteerMarek, Bali ultimate and I think it is puffery, I suggest leaving the improvement tag up for now until we see what others have to say. --John (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say you think "it is puffery", what exactly is the "it" that you're referring to? You've not explained that in any way that makes sense. Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I spend considerable time and effort toning the "advertising" style down a few days ago. Maybe the entire project was designed to promote Gibraltar but the way the article is written down is anything but promotional. I'm removing the tag. --Ipigott (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I would refer you to Volunteer Marek; I will copy the relevant part which I do not think has been addressed. "..the lede is supposed to summarize information from the body of the text - which this lede does not do, nor is the nature of the project sourced" --John (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not as if it's difficult to source it, is it? I've done so and I hope this rather ludicrous dispute is resolved now. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points - I haven't read all of this

I'm not a PR consultant. My expertise is in Engineering, I.T., project management and Education. It says so on my wiki page. The P.R. for the previous wiki town project was done by a very clever team led by Steve Virgin. Jimmy says "to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikimedia or anywhere else." - I agree with him. Firstly I wasn't paid to do it, and secondly it takes an admin to put a DYK article on the front page. I've done this thousands of times - I am an admin who is one of the longest DYK volunteers. I have never done this for a Gibraltar article (to my knowledge). On the one occasion that I wanted a Gibraltar article on the main page I requested it on the DYK discussion page and someone thankfully allowed an article to be promoted to the front page on Gibraltar's national day. DYK articles on the main page in exceptional cases get maybe 20,000 views. 17 time 20,000 is not "millions". Do beware that you are not reporting someone elses P.R. Victuallers (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A question - What did you mean when you wrote that, as a consultant working for Victuallers Ltd that "I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered £2m paybeack on £50K investment?" What was this "paybeack?" How was it generated? Was it some kind of engineering return? Are you saying you don't have any business with Mr. Virgin? Are you willing to release the full financial details, the actual documents, of your business relationship with Gibraltar? Etc. Etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative project?

I have now removed "collaborative" from the lead. I had originally used the term since it appeared from the press reports that, as in Monmouthpedia, Wikimedia UK had an official relationship with the Gibraltar authorities. This no longer appears to be the case. I certainly did not use the term in any promotional sense. --Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Collaborative" is an accurate and necessary description. It's a WikiProject, like any other, involving the collaborative efforts of a few dozen editors. You shouldn't give the impression that this is some kind of bilateral thing between two organisations because it's not. There are many more parties involved, namely the many editors who, without being party to any agreements, are giving their time to contribute to it. Seriously, if you don't consider what they are doing is a collaboration, what would you call it? Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's NOT "a WikiProject, like any other", is it?  Volunteer Marek  07:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Structurally it is. It's organised in exactly the same way as WP:GLAM/BM or Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. The British Museum not only offered prizes, it actually employed a Wikipedian in Residence - User:Wittylama - for a period - but this didn't affect the way the project was organised. Like any other WikiProject, it's a loose grouping of editors with a common interest collaborating to produce content. It's supported by an outside body, just like the BM WikiProject and Monmouthpedia, but that doesn't change its essential nature. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As this particular comment relates directly to me I'd like to clarify: for my British Museum project - the first Wikipedian in Residence worldwide - I was NOT paid in any way. In fact, I had to quit my job at home in Sydney and fly to (and live in) London at my own expense in order to do the role for its 5 week duration. (I did get a scholarship to that year's Wikimania immediately afterwards so that reduced the cost of travel home somewhat). I'd been arguing to both the Museum and GLAM communities for over a year that a productive, mutually-beneficial and policy-compliant relationship could be built so it was time for me to put my OWN money where my mouth is.

Because this was the first ever direct relationship between a GLAM and Wikimedia I was extra careful about any possible complaint of CoI etc. so we even got approval in advance from WP:COIN and also the food that was given to even participants during behind-the-scenes tours was paid for by the UK Wikimedia Chapter. The ONLY financial/in-kind activity paid for by the British Museum was the "feature article prize" where they gave away 5 x 100pound vouchers to their own bookshop to other Wikipedians. I hope this clarifies things. Wittylama 03:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If only other people had been as mindful of the appearance of COI as you were, Wittylama. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my take on Liam's work is that he has dedicated himself to pro-bono contributions to the movement at the expense of making a real-life income. We should have more of his type. Tony (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

[17] - You can't use wikipedia as a source for itself. Need a secondary source for that. Volunteer Marek  07:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How is Gibraltarpedia not a reliable source for itself? If it meets the criteria set out in WP:SELFSOURCE it's a viable source. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also - It is structured as a WikiProject, a collaboration between a loose grouping of editors to develop a particular subject area. --> that's a pretty clear example of WP:SYNTH. I don't think a book written in 2008 can be discussing a project started in 2012 (unless there's some *really* funky stuff going on) Volunteer Marek  07:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate reading of it. The fact that it's structured as a WikiProject is stated up front on the Gibraltarpedia page. Nobody is disputing that's how it's structured. The 2008 book covers the nature of a WikiProject, and that's what it's used for here. It's not being used as a source for what Gibraltarpedia is, it's being used as a source for a what a WikiProject is. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is classic WP:SYNTH and I have removed it yet again. A project cannot be a source on itself, and a 2008 book cannot tell us anything meaningful about a 2012 phenomenon. --John (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I call bullshit. The book is a reference solely for what a WikiProject is, and you know that perfectly well. As for self-sourcing, you also know perfectly well what WP:SELFSOURCE says. Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I do, and I regard this claim as being "unduly self-serving" and hence a classic SYNTH as I said just above. --John (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how it is "unduly self-serving"? Are you denying that Gibraltarpedia is a WikiProject? Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gibraltar's own Wikipedia site"?

The Gibraltar Chronicle only two days ago quotes a statement from the Gibraltar government spokesman that "Mr Bamkin is working with the Government on the Gibraltarpedia project, which aims to set up Gibraltar’s own Wikipedia site" (my emphasis). This may be just journalistic inaccuracy, but it seems like a direct quote: what exactly are the Gibraltar government expecting? JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. See the section above as well (and actually several ones above) for why we should not be characterising this as "collaborative" which implies mutual benefit, unless of course multiple third party sources also characterise it this way. My reading is that it is a promotional effort on behalf of Gibraltar, from which Wikipedia may incidentally benefit. --John (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to hold that absurd PoV, but not to push it in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? --John (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure he is, since you're the one who's making bizarre gyrations in pursuit of some kind of POV. How can you possibly believe that Gibraltarpedia does not offer mutual benefit? I mean, look at the achievements list - dozens of new and improved articles already, and probably hundreds by the end of the year. How is that not a benefit for Wikipedia? In fact, there's good reason to believe that Wikipedia is actually getting more benefit out of it than any other party. Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like being accused of "pushing a POV"; I don't find it collegial and I don't find it changes my mind about things. You're too near the bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and you need to be higher up to make an impression on me. At the moment you and Andy just sound like you're saying "You're an asshat! You're an asshat!" This doesn't offend me as I have quite a thick skin, but it doesn't impress me either. One side effect this stridency is also having is to make me question who has and hasn't benefited from this promotion. --John (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's journalistic inaccuracy; and from a single source at that. It should not be part of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's an obvious error since there is no such thing as someone's "own Wikipedia site" - they don't exist and it's not possible. WP:V doesn't require us to blindly repeat trivially obvious errors. If the NY Times mistakenly printed that Mitt Romney was a Scientologist rather than a Mormon we wouldn't be under any obligation to repeat the error here. Prioryman (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think it's a coincidence that "Gibraltarpedia.org" was set up and currently redirects to the project at Wikipedia. Why was this done? This could all be perfectly cleared up by publishing all the correspondence and documents between Victualler's Ltd, Wikimedia UK, and the Gibraltar Tourism Authority on this matter. Sunlight is a delightful disinfectant. By the way, Mr. Bamkin coordinated the release of that statement with the Gibraltar government (had advance knowledge of it, urged everyone to look at the gibraltar chronicle website the following morning, etc...) Here is the precise statement from the government of Gibraltar: "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. ([18] - note who passed the note on to that mailing list -- Mr. Bamkin.)Bali ultimate (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What do we know about "The agreement that the Gibraltar Government has with the Wikimedia Foundation" mentioned in that statement? JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

COI

Is there an appetite for getting editors who have a conflict of interest in editing this area to make a self-declaration somewhere, maybe here? --John (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems a strange request to make. If you mean in the article, that would be very unencyclopedic. It also seems rather unnecessary. The only editor I know of who has a COI is Victuallers, and he disclosed that at the start of the project. Prioryman (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As shown in the comments by Bali Ultimate above, Andy Mabbett has a clear COI with this topic. I think the COI tag would be appropriate for this article as long as Andy insists on editing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate demonstrated no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a COI in this area, Andy? --John (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Separate page on controversy?

It appears to me that the entire Gibraltarpedia initiative is suffering from unfortunate occurences outside its control. Furthermore, as far as Gibraltar is concerned, the project seems to have been conducted in good faith. Indeed, the number and quality of the articles written or improved as a result of the project is high. The technical approach together with the speed and progress of development (cf Monmouthpedia) can be seen as an example for other cities or authorities to follow. I think it would therefore be appropriate to remove the lengthy discussion of controversy from the present article. A new article, e.g. Wikipedia controversy over Gibraltarpedia or perhaps just Gibraltarpedia (controversy) could then be created, consisting more or less of the section on Controversy in the present article with a suitable introduction. The Gibraltarpedia article itself would of course have a short controversy section with a Main Article tag pointing to the new controversy page. Any support for this? --Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I considered that as well. On balance, I think the controversy section should remain. Good faith or not, the controversy was a major int'l news story, causing a major blacke eye to wikipedia as a whole. Stripping the controversy section from the article would create at least the appearance (if not the reality) of a coverup or whitewash. Best to keep it where it is IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the section would appear to breach WP:POVFORK. --John (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with that although it seems to me that the controversy is actually not about Gibraltarpedia but about the undertakings given by a consultant and the remuneration involved. Keeping the account of the controversy as part of the main article is actually providing the project with much more visibility - which is maybe a good thing! --Ipigott (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A separate article for the controversy doesn't seem to be justified, unless there's a lot more controversy and the page size gets out of hand. --John Nagle (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit 2

Please remove the mention of 'Wikimedia Foundation UK' and replace it with 'Wikimedia UK'. There is no such organisation as 'Wikimedia Foundation UK', because Wikimedia UK is part of a global movement, and is very much independent from the Wikimedia Foundation! The Cavalry (Message me) 09:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, with some other tidying up. All mentions of Wikimedia UK are now consistent, with the first wikilinked. --Mirokado (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations in revert rationales

Prioryman reverted content added by user:Cbl62 about a legal threat to remove Bamkin with an edit summary of "Don't think this is worth including - editor concerned, User:StevenPine, appears to be a sockpuppet/troll account". Prioryman didn't inform StevenPine. Prioryman then asked a checkuser to confirm it was a sock, however the result is "probably not". See [19]. Prioryman didn't inform Cbl62 of the checkuser result.

Long after this, Cbl62 agreed to not include it again because of Prioryman's already disproven sockpuppet allegation, but asked for evidence.

From what I have seen so far, Prioryman's involvement in this subject is primarily disruptive (spreading falsehoods about Liam's BM role, false sockpuppet accusations about users, etc), and from what I understand he has a personal involvement in the subject which would explain emotional bad-faith reactions, and I unfortunately believe that he should remove himself from this topic completely (content and talk), and hope he will voluntarily do this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am an occasional Wikipedia editor, my name is Steven Pine(google me, I'm on twitter, facebook, I certainly am not hiding). Prioryman has been extremely aggressive with any and all who have any criticism of the whole Roger Bamkin / Gibraltarpedia, and given his extensive involvement I can only assume he knows Roger personally. StevenPine (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're only an occasional editor, then one thing you may not know about is WP:AGF. It's worth a read. Probably for Prioryman as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

StevenPine can back up his allegations about Prioryman's action with evidence. Prioryman cannot back up his allegations about Pine with evidence. So, StevenPine has the higher moral ground here. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From memory ChrisO/Prioryman is a liar (historically, it's possible he's reformed) who tries to discredit critics of his friends in the UK by, well, lying. It's possible that he isn't lying this time. But it would be out of character.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is looking for a personal attack, one has been given right there. Good job, I hope you feel more accomplished now. Silverseren^C 04:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believed that StevenPine was a sockpuppet on two main grounds; (1) his editing record - he's not just an "occasional editor", but his post to Jimbo's talk page was only his tenth ever edit, his first edit in 9 months and only his 2nd edit in over a year. I find it very curious that someone with such a scanty editing record would even know what Gibraltarpedia was, let alone be interested enough to make veiled legal threats on Jimbo Wales' talk page - hardly an obvious place for a newbie to visit. Something does not smell right about this. I've seen enough sleeper sockpuppets over the years to recognise behaviour that is typical of one. (2) I was under the impression that the ever-so-cute appelation of "Bumkin" [20] was a coinage from Wikipediocracy. I thought I had read it there. However, I can't find it now so either I was mistaken or it's been moderated out; either way, I can't prove it. If I'm wrong about StephenPine then I apologise. As for the comments above, those by the Wikipediocracy trolls on this page are worthless by definition, but I'm surprised by John Vandenberg's claim that I've been "spreading falsehoods about Liam's BM role". I reject this completely and I invite him to retract this personal attack. It seems to be rather an "emotional bad-faith reaction", to coin a phrase. Prioryman (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Liam responded to your falsehood here. Have you apologised to Liam? Will you admit you are wrong about StephenPine, and properly apologise to him? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's your misunderstanding, not mine. I never said that Liam was paid, I know perfectly well that he wasn't. I said that he was employed. Have you never heard of unpaid employment? As for StephenPine, I remain sceptical of his bona fides and I note that you've not responded to my comments about his curious edit history. Prioryman (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My name is spelled Steven Pine, and I do not need an apology from Prioryman since it would lack sincerity. I'm not sure what is curious about my edit history besides it being sparse -- if anything you'll notice I make as much if not more use of talk pages than I do of direct edits. StevenPine (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Further coverage

• "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Breaks Silence On Resurgence Of Promotional Scandal", The Daily Dot, 25 October 2012
• "Wales: Let's ban Gibraltar-crazy Wikipedians for 5 years – Too bad you're not the boss, Jimbo", The Register, 26 October 2012

Both report that the DYK main page placement resumed a short while after the initial press reports. AndreasKolbe JN466 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)