Talk:Wikimedia UK

Summary section updated
The summary section of this article was very out of date. I have updated it, with links to the Chapter's current strategy and latest Strategic Report. I have also updated the Chairperson, which is no longer Nick Poole but Monisha Shah. Please note that I am the Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK and so this edit represents a potential conflict of interest, however I have tried to keep my changes purely factual. I have not made any changes to the body of the article itself, just the summary section. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that you read WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:MISSION. I'm staggered that you need to be told this. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It may not have been apparent from my edit summary, but hopefully the above is clearer and this even more so. My issue is not so much the COI (although WP:COI "strongly discourages" making direct edits) but that the content added is either unsourced (the appointees) or highly promotional (the mission statement). If you are a member of WMUK (as indicated on your userpage) then you also have a conflict of interest. While this may seem pedantic, I hope you agree that WMUK should uphold the highest possible standards around COI given that the organisation has previously advised PR firms how to handle COI. It is extremely hypocritical if the CEO of the organisation then adds a mission statement to the article and makes unsourced "updates". SmartSE (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You've also removed the summary of controversies that WMUK has been involved in. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, the removal of any mention of controversies from the lede was grossly inappropriate. Like it or not, they have played a significant part in WMUKs history, and have been the subject of significant coverage in external reliable sources. This looks like exactly the sort of whitewashing that wouldn't be tolerated in coverage of any non-Wikipedia-related subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, it's Lucy here. I'm really sorry to have caused these issues. Several trustees in the past week have mentioned the factual inaccuracies on the Wikimedia UK page and in the interests of expediency (and, I think, for the first time in six years) I edited the page myself. I removed the controversies from the summary as they were over 8 years ago and didn't feel like the most relevant content for that section - however I can see that I overstepped the mark there and understand why they have been reverted. I'm very sorry that I didn't uphold community standards and have caused these concerns. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Baby/ bathwater
Recent reverts have restored the name of a former chair of the trust, to his former position. This is a violation of WP:BLP.

The number of employees is now wrong, with 43% missing.

The fact that the charity are no longer at Development House, London, has been removed.

Other discussions notwithstanding, these egregious errors should be fixed ASAP. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that no citation has been provided for either the old chair or the new one, both would appear to be WP:BLP violations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we have an uncited - though easily verifiable - statement that is correct, than an uncited statement that is (easily verifiable as) incorrect. YMMV. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather that Wikipedia stopped pretending to be a tertiary source on its own projects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump not AndyWhoDoesntUnderstandBLP would, grumpiness and snide comment aside, appear to be right... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do feel free to point out which my statements you believe to be incorrect, and say why. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag
I am minded it the case that the concerns present at application of COI at Special:Diff/1055957248 have been addressed in which case the COI should be removed and the checked added at Connected contributor (paid). , as involved since November 2022 do you need other changes before the tag is removed or to go further back? There's also the question of whether needs to be added as an e.g. Connected contributor & I'm cool either way on that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ITYM "November 2021", but otherwise you appear to be correct. I share your ambivalence regarding the letter point. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. No objection to removal of the tag at this point. --Andreas JN 466 15:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the revision history, I’m fine with removing the COI tag and adding the Connected contributor (paid) one. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection, concerns appears addressed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)