On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Charles,

thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, and couldn't resist to comment. 

2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Hi Rod,
>
> We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and
> elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The
> honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has
> volunteered to run it,
Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is
unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended,
(ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively
obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear
definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this
matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board
member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might
need to be a budget.

(i) the timeline is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline (but would need tweeking in individual countries)
(ii) the concept description is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept and there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the Netherlands with many tips&tricks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mortem
(iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.

That would be English Heritage here. There is a file to download on their website. Unfortunately it is very unhelpfully labelled. Also Magnus Manske eventually downloaded it for me: it is in the format of some proprietary GIS (he couldn't tell me what), and for that reason (according to Magnus) the location information is unreadable. When I said there might need to be a budget, I was thinking that WMUK might need to buy proprietary GIS software. (Yes, I know that there would be a major row about that with the ideologues.)

There are other routes: local government officers are responsible for lists in their areas. That is some hundreds of people to contact, however. I found out something about this through an archaeologist friend. There is also an online archaeological database I found, but you have to pay for that also.

(iv) this definition is different in every country, because every government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English etc) government already did that for us.

There is a concept of Scheduled Monument, and what it is goes back to dealing with English Heritage

I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in Berlin.

Actually I asked some questions of WMUK; the only answer seemed to be that a volunteer should come forward who would do everything. I think Magnus got tired when it became plain that it was an issue here of dealing with various kinds of bureaucracy. The information we need to do a good job is undoubtedly there, and is something that should be made available through "freedom of information", but that would take some big effort. Especially to get it in a free file format.

I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked early and directly at the relevant people. 


My conclusion has been that the "localisation" of the concept to the UK is problematic, because of the approach taken in our bureaucracy. If WMUK had a proper "research function" then I would not have to be figuring this all out myself freelance. But you had better not get me started on that topic.

Charles