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.
On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
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
If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
conducting public relations on this matter.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.