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,

secondly in the UK we already have the geograph mass upload which still has tens of thousands of uncategoried images on commons. Not all of them are monuments by any means, but enough are that our UK priority is probably more about categorising and using what we already have whilst in other countries it may make more sense to concentrate on filling in the gaps. Thirdly in the UK chapter there seems to be more enthusiasm for collaborations with Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, this has the potential in some collaborations such as the British Museum backstage pass to get our photographers access to stuff that is not normally on Public display.

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 &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>> On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote: 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_mo… (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.

(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.

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.

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

On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote: 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. There is a concept of Scheduled Monument, and what it is goes back to dealing with English Heritage 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. 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 13/07/2011 11:39, rodward(a)rodward.plus.com wrote: The discussion is certainly worth having. Yes, that looks like progress. Technical matters tend to be the long suit among Wikimedians. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.

On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles Matthews&lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the job description clear). The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is more likely to see the project through and do it without too much involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very busy board would need to find the time the put together the request for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.

On 14 Jul 2011, at 10:09, Charles Matthews wrote: The board has a huge amount to discuss at each meeting, so it not being on the meeting agenda or in the minutes is not a sign that we haven't been thinking about it. It's certainly been on my mind for a long time, and I doubt that there would have been any problem with supporting or funding such a project - but we didn't have anyone that was willing to lead it, set out its needs, and foster a critical mass of involvement.