David,
Great to hear from you. A correction, as you seem to misunderstand who I am. I am not conducting public relations. I am not paid for public relations. I am simply an unpaid volunteer Wikimedian and I do not see why I should apologize for that fact. The Wikimedia community is supposed to be able to rely on this list to raise and discuss organization issues, and I'm writing as a member of the community.
The term "copyfraud" is used standardly within the Wikimedia community to describe false claims of copyright by institutions, there is no special reason to avoid the word when it's a museum that is doing it.
I expect to be able to write about issues for the Wikimedia community using language that we use in our community. I do not expect me, or anyone else, to have their free speech here limited to language that will fly well within WMF marketing or that will be diplomatic and unchallenging for the British Library's public relations department. If we see blatant copyfraud, the community should be free to call it what it is.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about fraudulent conduct is yourself.
If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of fraud.
If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be conducting public relations on this matter.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe