Hi,
There are a variety of ways this can be organised. I have been involved in
one initiative in the area of Law Centres.
You can have simple subsidiaries, or the one we set up in Tower Hamlets is
a co-operative, combining aspects of a consumer co-op and a workers co-op.
We would need to discuss how we wanted to handle the various relationships
- between WMUK, the Social Enterprise, clients, consultants, trainers all
in the context of the wider Wikimedia communities.
This might seem a a daunting task, but it's our own fault for making WP so
successful!
I am particularly interested in developing a service to deliver training
in use of Mediawiki technology with reference to specific platforms -
i.e.Wikipedia and its sister sites, but also other projects such as
Wikivet:
http://en.wikivet.net/Veterinary_Education_Online
We could develop accredited training which fits in with the National
Qualifications Framework. We could also have less formal training
available.
I think we should be aware that the release of a new user-friendly WSYIWYG
interface could make Mediawiki more attractive amongst businesses.
My personal preference is the co-operative model - which I feel fits the
ethos of Wikipedia very well. There are ways in which this could be set up
as a Community Interest Company, giving operational control to those
developing the service, while at the same time ensuring an income stream
to the charity. We could also include providing trading gratis where the
circumstances make this most appropriate.
Essentially this would require the Board making a decision that it was
interested in looking into the idea and setting up a steering committee to
take the matter forward. This could be done with a limited amount of
officer time. In fact there may well be sources of funding we could access
to help develop clearly defined options which could be presented for
general discussion in the community (which might well mean listening to
people based outside the UK).
all the best
Fabian
(user:Leutha)
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:41:04 +0100
From: Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] social enterprise
Message-ID:
<CADvxJeGC1sA5AchfZ_UfJFZEuKHWdfhWQngrx=qwuzKuEVGZ=g(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Fabian,
Thanks for this very interesting idea. I've also thought that there are a
number of opportunities in this space derived from the wikimedia projects
that aren't entirely suited to a registered charity.
A number of UK charities manage to combine an enterprise through a "trading
subsidiary". Would this idea work through such a vehicle?
Regards,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM, <fabian(a)unpopular.org.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to thank Thomas Morton for his well thought explanation
addressed to Roger (Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:51:10 +0100). It covered a number
of points I felt need addressing and Tom put them in a useful and tactful
way - much better than I could have hoped to do.
However, I would like to address some ramifications of this.
This is one reason why charities are often run by
older, retired, types
who
do not need to go out and earn a living.
Quite so. However, one of the consequences of the phenomenal success of WP
is that the potential development of where we are now has created space
for activity beyond that which WMUK as a charity is best placed to carry
out.
a) Wikiversity has a great potential, however the development of such a
repository of Open Educational Resources (OERs) will be very slow without
people being paid - not so much for editing but for delivering teaching
which uses WV as a platform, creating OERs free for other people to use.
The dynamic for this is quite different from WP and Wikicommons.
I have not been involved in all the sister projects, but suspect that they
will each have their own dynamic, which needs to be addressed in its own
terms.
b) Linked to a) is the delivery of training in how to use WP. It seems to
me very straight forward to see WV as an ideal platform for this. There is
also much to be learnt from WikiEducator, which uses a Mediawiki in
conjunction wit the moodle software.
c) Another aspect of this is that I have noticed that some of the people
who attend WMUK training sessions are people who are employed by learned
societies as Social Media Officers. While I find volunteering to train
other volunteers quite attractive, when it comes to giving time freely in
order help in the training for paid workers of organisations I am
confident that i am not the only person who finds this a bit awkward.
Likewise as we welcome academics who stipulate that their students achieve
certain goals in order to pass a course, this to me creates a market for
delivering training outside a volunteer - to -volunteer framework.
Aside from the problems which have arisen from Roger being a trustee, I
think the work he has done is amazing and really innovative. I would like
to see it continue. However what I feel would really facilitate this is
the creation of a not-for-profit social enterprise which would provide a
structured way in which innovations like QRpedia could be placed in
relation to both WMUK, WMF and the broader community.
I feel that our community has an amazing range of diverse talents, and
that if the possibilities provoked by WPs success are to be realised, then
we need to develop a way in which the ethos of unpaid editing of WP itself
can be balanced with other roles which are emerging which are peripheral
to editing but which can greatly enhance WP and its sister projects.
I hope that the recent experiences at WMUK will stimulate a discussion
about how such a social enterprise might be set up, how the ethos of
collaborative working and sharing of resources might be taken forward, how
this can be done in a way which does not disrupt the very success which WP
has enjoyed, and how such a social enterprise can contribute towards
fundraising for WMUK to deliver its charitable goals.
If such a discussion is got going now, there is some prospect that we
could have a concrete proposal which has been mulled over by the community
in time for the next AGM.
As Tom said:
Bottom line; you (as a board), we even, fucked up.
Not maliciously, but
very badly. You lost sight of the wider objective.
But it's not something to beat each other up
over. Learn from it, make
improvements, move on.
I am proposing this as a way of moving on in a way which keeps people like
Roger with their brilliant ideas involved but not as trustees.
all the best
Fabian
(User:Leutha)