Counting jokes as staff[edit source]
Now we have 10 staff and 2 contractors, could we take Pete the WikiPlatypus off the list of staff? I noticed that the WMF do something similar on their site and they were being ridiculed for their lack of professionalism. I could imagine this appropriate and hilarious for a Student's Union but not a national charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even though I am technically outranked by a fluffy toy, and appreciate the prospect of dead man's shoes, I would still keep Pete on. It's not the only organisation, business etc that I've seen with pets and/or cuddly toys listed as staff.
- Just limit his job responsibilities to ceremonial ones. Best --Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can supply an example of a respected national UK charity that has fictional employees listed on its website? WMUK aspires to become a respected national charity rather than seen as a project spun out from a hip San Francisco software engineering start up; it needs to behave like it for that to become a reality and I'm not convinced that keeping this joke on the page helps. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need an example to follow, as I'm sure we can set our own. But here are some examples where, while admittedly not listed as employees (though one appears to be working in the image provided), mascots and charities mix.
Theo the Bear (Children's Hospital Charity) http://tchc.org.uk/Theo Pudsey Bear (Children in Need) http://static.bbci.co.uk/programmeimages/304x171/images/live/p017jlz6.jpg Barney Bear (Barnardo's) http://www.barnardos.org.uk/12534_about_barnardo_s.pdf
I don't feel that humour and professionalism are mutually exclusive, but understand your concerns. If Pete was listed as CEO that would be a bit too "hip start-up" for me, but while listed as Mascot, it seems benign and just erring towards friendliness rather than formality. --Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)