Whose Money Is It Anyway? Options

[dogbiscuit]

From the minutes:

Second tranche of WMF grant (AT)
AT would like the authority to pay a second tranche to the WMF. CK expressed the view that the sooner we give the WMF the grant, the better: however, MP expressed an opposing viewpoint, that we wait until certain key agreements are signed before finalising the payment.
JD wants to know if they have formally applied for a grant from us: AT said that we do have an official letter from the WMF asking for a grant. The third tranche will wait until the accounts are finalised.
DECISION: To pay the remaining £200k grant to the WMF and follow up with Barry Newstead re: the fundraising agreement. AT also has authority to transfer a third tranche once the accounts are finalised, as long as that amount is less than £45k.
ACTION: RB and AT to pay the second tranche and contact Barry Newstead.

So having been gifted a large chunk of money by virtue of a website diversion to their own fundraising page, Wikimedia UK contemplate playing hardball over lack of finalising agreements.

Intriguing that Wikimedia UK think in terms of it being their money to grant to the WMF. I wonder what WMF think about such debates.

I also wonder about this grant application business, seems like glorified money laundering to me. I wonder what HM Customs and Revenue think about these schemes. Just to be clear, WMF do fund-raising on their website. They divert UK clicks to a UK based company who nominally are in receipt of the moneys and are able to get tax back based on the UK based company being a charity but in practice have to hand the money back to the WMF. So the UK based company has not actually sought the donations, it has not provided any significant labour or effort to garner these donations. It has simply processed them, with a bit of paperwork to claim the tax back on behalf of a US company. Probably worth a chat with a friendly tax accountant or two that I know.

Thinks, it should also be fun to nitpick and worry through all the minutes so they get so paranoid that they hold everything in secret. Then they might learn why information does not like being free after all.

[lilburne]

Thinks, it should also be fun to nitpick and worry through all the minutes so they get so paranoid that they hold everything in secret. Then they might learn why information does not like being free after all.

I think they are already learning that lesson.

[HRIP7]

The minutes mention two interesting new Wikimedia UK policies: the Friendly space policy, and the Participation policy (draft).

The striking thing about the friendly space policy is that it expressly states that

Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue or talks. Event participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the event at the discretion of the event organiser.

Isn't that rather hypocritical, given the widespread view that there should be no suppression whatsoever of sexual imagery etc. on Wikimedia websites for any reason, and that people who have uploaded sexual images of themselves, their partners, their former partners (possibly without their consent) should not have the right to ask for these to be removed again?

In fact, Commons is a complete mess for never asking for model releases the way professional outfits like istockphoto do. (They also pay their contributors, provide online training, and guarantee customers that their images do not infringe anyone's rights ... but I digress.)

The participation policy seems to be an effort to ensure that Wikimedia UK members can remain totally anonymous, as it forbids

Persistent intrusion into the privacy of people who choose to participate in Wikimedia UK activities under their Wikimedia username or other pseudonym (regardless of whether their identity has been disclosed to the activity organisers or partner institutions)

Shouldn't this really just be a matter for UK law? How does that compare to other UK charities? Are there any other UK charities that have rules like that?

Prosecutable privacy intrusions are one thing; but is someone's name now private? For example, if you say out loud that a volunteer for the Red Cross who insists on being called "The King" by everyone is really called John Smith, does that mean the Red Cross don't want you no more?

Again, it seems hypocritical. In Wikipedia, efforts are made to locate whatever embarrassing thing can be found in some notable person's history, down to the level of a driving offence, and to make sure that thing is permanently visible under the top Google link for that person's name. But God forbid that there be any scrutiny of the people who accomplish that effort.

[dogbiscuit]

The striking thing about the friendly space policy is that it expressly states that

Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue or talks. Event participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the event at the discretion of the event organiser.

Isn't that rather hypocritical, given the widespread view that there should be no suppression whatsoever of sexual imagery etc. on Wikimedia websites for any reason, and that people who have uploaded sexual images of themselves, their partners, their former partners (possibly without their consent) should not have the right to ask for these to be removed again?

I think the really hypocritical thing about that is that people like Fae appear to define themselves to some extent in terms of their sexuality - it leaks out of their communications all the time, it is part of their WikiPersonality - yet they see it as an intrusion to note this. I think they would probably argue it was unfair that they were expected to suppress their personality or some such argument, yet the point about Wikipedian anonymity is that the editing is supposed to be such a well-proscribed process that personality should not be part of it. Presumably David Gerard would be banned because he is a walking fetish display from the pictures he displays of himself.

There is a challenge - to turn up and complain that anyone dressed in an extrovert fashion is being sexually threatening and you feel threatened by it. Somehow I think the policy would melt away then.

Of course, taking that policy wording to its Wikipedian extreme, we seem to being told that we cannot use he/she; we cannot allude to gender, we cannot talk of our spouses; we cannot discuss the problem of overtly sexual content at Wikimedia UK.

If Wikipedia anonymity really worked, then we really wouldn't be interested in editors at all because they'd just be worker drones sifting through sources to make wonderful articles, and we would not really be aware of their interests.

[Kelly Martin]

Of course, taking that policy wording to its Wikipedian extreme, we seem to being told that we cannot use he/she; we cannot allude to gender, we cannot talk of our spouses; we cannot discuss the problem of overtly sexual content at Wikimedia UK.

If Wikipedia anonymity really worked, then we really wouldn't be interested in editors at all because they'd just be worker drones sifting through sources to make wonderful articles, and we would not really be aware of their interests.

To be fair, I was told (way back when) that, as an admin, I ought not be friends with anyone else who is also an admin. I believe it is formally Wikipedia policy that all Wikipedians ought to be faceless, personality-free drones with no emotional attachments to anyone or anything, except, of course, Wikipedia.