On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than
the original thread,
hope that is OK)
I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle
it doesn't
really work and people need more support than just an email address
they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and
procedure,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there
aren't more news articles featuring prominent people who have had little or
no success with Wikipedia!
Sorry, I shouldn't have said it doesn't work. I should have said it
often doesn't work. It often does, but there are plenty of times when
it doesn't. Don't forget the large number of cases which don't even
get as far as someone emailing OTRS because they don't know how to do
that.
and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up
for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a
market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and
individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the
same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a
paid service.)
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary
contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not
shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to
someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when
they are
paying you to do that... :D
It's a issue, certainly, but as long as you are completely clear about
what it is you are doing I think it can work. The key would be to have
an initial meeting where the client explains what it is they want to
achieve and you tell them whether that is actually within Wikipedia
policy. If it isn't, then you don't take it any further. You would
only actually try and get changes made if you think there is a good
chance of success. (Whether than initial meeting would be chargable or
not, I don't know - that's a detail to be worked out.)
It would be
better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be
providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying
to offer such services.
We do have to be a little careful here what with the current grumblings
about COI etc.
Yes, being careful is a must!
I did try and draw up a rough business plan
for such a consultancy, and I think it could turn a profit. The big
unknowns were how much we could charge (I used some PR consultancy
chargeout rates I found online as a rough estimate) and how much
non-chargable work would be required in order to attract business (if
we get people just knocking on the door without any reals sales work
required, then it would easily be profitable).
Is this something you would be willing to share with us?
It's just a scrap of paper with some numbers on it, but I can write it
up if you like. I didn't share it when I first wrote it (a couple of
weeks ago) because there were still too many unknowns to work out
whether it would actually be profitable.
My thoughts are that you have the germ of the idea,
but are taking it in a
direction that runs into numerous problems farther down the line.
OTRS kinda works; I will admit I have seen some replies from Wikipedians
that make me cringe at their bluntness. However this is not an unassailable
problem.
I would tackle this idea in three ways:
* Invest in OTRS agents; run training sessions (we have already done that
once I think...), write training materials etc.
* Invest in the OTRS software; it's not entirely fit for our purposes. The
concept is not complex, and I feel it would be possible to contribute either
to the OTRS software-base, tweak the existing code or even begin from
scratch with a custom-built solution.
The third strand would be based on your thoughts about paid support. Rather
than offer one-to-one support, I'd suggest training days and support groups
(think; Wikipedia Anonymous :)). Based loosely on the format of a morning
crash course in Wikipedia and an afternoon QA session, with editors around
to help with individual issues.
Just thinking aloud.
That sort of thing could be done as well, but I doubt many people want
to learn how to navigate the minefield that is Wikipedia just in order
to fix a few errors in an article. They just want to pay someone to
sort it out.