Following on from Fae and myself meeting Robin Urquart of the National
Archives of Scotland, I'm looking for people who may be interested in
working on a WW-I related GLAM project.
The Archives have an extensive collection of letters that soldiers wrote
to be delivered to family members in the event they were killed. Due to
the accessibility requirements imposed on any body like the archives,
there is a need to transcribe such documents before they can make them
Each letter generally has associated personal effects, such as tickets
to the last theatre show someone saw before going to the front. So, they
make for a beautiful piece of very personal history. With WW-I having
"pals regiments" and the entire young male community from towns and
villages serving - and dying - together, these can readily be focussed
on small geographic areas. Perhaps even readily covering everyone listed
on specific war memorials.
I'm open to any and all ideas on how we could work with the National
Archives of Scotland on this; there's work for those who shun sunlight
in transcribing handwritten letters (to meet their accessibility
requirements), linking letters and effects to specific monuments, and
anything else people might can come up with.
To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable to aim to use Commons, Wikisource,
*and* Wikibooks. A QR code could be placed at a relevant war memorial,
it points to a Wikibook collecting all the soldiers' letters, with scans
and transcripts. If the relevant items in the National Archives are
properly referenced there should be nothing to stop a local venue such
as a church having an exhibition of the original letters and associated
items like tickets to the theatre the night before someone died. Doing
that in the 2014-2018 window is not going to be difficult.
Since I'm unemployed after Friday this week, I'd like to devote some
time to getting the ball rolling on this. But, I've a hunch this is
something that could be excellent for waking the wider public up to
projects other than Wikipedia, recruiting local history buffs as new
content contributors, and getting cultural institutions to 'think
outside the box' around working with us.
Feel free to throw in suggestions and comments!
Mobile Tel: +44 (0)788 987 8314 Email: brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org | brian.mcneil(a)o2.co.uk
WikiMedia UK, interim Scottish coordinator/GLAM-MGS liaison.
Wikinews Accredited Reporter | "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."
All content of this message is confidential, and intended for listed recipients only!
I feel sorry for you that you have the feeling that you went out for
nothing. However, you did surely add to the wealth - having multiple photos
of something is also worth something.
A categorization project sounds great, but should probably not be called
'wiki loves monuments' to avoid confusion. It is also much less useful to
new users, the main target group of Wiki Loves Monuments. We shouldn't
bother them with Commons' horrible categorization structure - they should
just identify what is on their photo, and we can (automagically) take it
from there thanks to the (to be built) database.
If you want to motivate people from our communities to categorize pictures,
that would be a nice project in its own right. Perhaps it would be nice to
do *before* wiki loves monuments - so that both get maximum effect?
No dia 30 de Janeiro de 2012 15:29, Roger Bamkin
> *Anecdotal story*: My wife decided to take me outside for a trip and
> asked where I wanted to go. I'd recently seen a tool by Magnus Mankse
> called *Shoot me* which lists out all the wiki articles geo tagged near
> you that lacked pics. So I quickly went
> and that listed out half a dozen useful places near me that lacked pics.
> We went out .... took the pics and when I went to load them I found out
> that all these pictures already existed ..... they were uncategorised, but
> there. I think I loaded some *new* pix but I'm not sure I added much to
> "the wealth".
> So if our objective is to "supply everything to everyone" (paraphrase our
> vision), then first we need a copy of everything. It could be that we
> already have a copy of nearly everything if we could just sort out what we
> had and what we lacked. However the chances of running a successful UK
> categorisation project is low..... or is it?
> Do you know I just typed the last sentence and realised that that is what
> we want. *We want a categorisation project*. What we know will appeal is
> a successful photography project. Hmmm
> UK WIKI LOVES MONUMENTS* - wacky proposal
> Prize goes to the b*est five media files in a complete
> Entrants will ensure that they use a valid commons category for a village,
> road, type of monuments etc. They will populate that category with as many
> photos and videos and sounds as possible. They are invited to add their own
> pictures, viideo and sounds but also to collect as many freely sourced
> files they can find from other sources too.
> Judges will look at wikimedia commons pages, wikipedia, wikisource etc
> pages that use or could use these resources. They will choose the winning
> category and the five media files that best illustrate its reason for
> winning. This is a "beauty" competition that is is not just based on the
> quality of the media but also the quantity, meta data and completeness of
> the chosen category.
> So thats an idea for what might work Please feel free to ignore, delete or
> On 30 January 2012 11:46, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>> I may have missed the point.. but.... doesn't this article need expanding
>> urgently? I feel these types of articles should be expanded routinely
>> (Grade I listed buildings).
>> In the news currently because English Heritage have just bought it.
>> Perhaps it should look more like this...
>> And, yes, I will edit the article - REAL SOON NOW.
>> Gordon Joly
>> Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> Roger Bamkin
> Chair WMUK <http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board>
> 01332 702993
> 0758 2020815
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
There's a great article about MonmoutpediA in the Guardian today;
congratulations to all involved, it's a great advert for our work,
despite some (baseless) naysaying.
However (there's always a catch!), the article says:
By April the aim is to dot 1,000 QR codes – a barcode that smartphones can
read – around the border town. Visitors will be able to use their
phones to scan
the QR codes and view the Wikipedia page (in the language their phone is set
up for) relevant to where they are standing.
which is good, but doesn't use the word QRpedia. can we try to
include/. emphasise that name on our marketing; or if we did,
encourage journalists to use it?
I would argue that the UK is a uniquely bad place for wikipedia loves
monuments. Not only has it already been done directly:
But geograph has also covered a lot of the ground. Repeatedly.
So what are the alternatives. If you want to insist on architecture
then everything listed in the Pevsner Architectural Guides is an
option. At least the stuff there has a reasonable chance of being
notable. Alternatively everything listed in the Defence of Britain
While I think photos of everything there exist they are not all online.
If people are prepared to move away from monuments options include
every single species native to the UK and underwater wrecks (which
have a higher challenge aspect). The species approach has the
advantage that we could also include videos.
Navy News is the 'unofficial' newspaper of the Royal Navy. it's not
published by the RN, but the two organisations work closely together. It
tends to get sold mostly on the south coast, but it covers all aspects
of Royal Naval deployments etc, and has done for 50 years. It's a
fantastic source for naval articles - and now they're digitising all
their past copies and making them freely accessible.
You can see the oldest at
http://navynews.co.uk/digital-edition/archive?date=-491878800, and an
example copy at
To quote them, /"Our technical genius Trevor has now scanned in all our
1954 editions - back when we were simply Portsmouth Navy News (some
readers complain we still are...). Trev's now working on 1982 issues to
mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands."/
Office& Development Manager
+44 (0)207 065 0991
This has been nagging away at the back of my mind for a few months
now. On IRC earlier, I was talking to Rock Drum, and it finally seemed
sensible to propose it. Since the OTRS workshop, a few different
groups have said "wouldn't it be good if we had a _____ workshop at
the WMUK offices?"
Only, why not bundle them all together and have an intensive one-day
event of skill sharing. I had initially thought of proposing a sister
projects day, but the idea of this would be to have sister projects
and other stuff all bundled together with the idea of enabling
existing Wikimedia volunteers to try new things, and to increase
cross-project coordination (really, despite what you may have heard,
Wikinewsies and Wikisourcers and Wiktionarians etc. don't bite).
I've put a page up on the wiki with the broad idea and some ideas for
sessions. Feel free to throw more ideas on the wiki, even if they are
a bit half-baked or not well thought out. If the event actually
happens, we'd obviously have to determine a schedule.
Is anyone interested in this? What steps would we have to go through
to make this a reality?
Many people on this list are involved in the lengthy discussion on Meta
about fundraising and fund dissemination.
The Board recently passed this resolution which sets out principles which
we believe are important as this conversation continues.
The Board of Wikimedia UK believes;
1) Decentralization, empowerment, and effective teamwork are core values of the
2) The future Wikimedia movement depends on the growth and empowerment
groups, and formal bodies. Therefore, the development of any organisation
within the Wikimedia movement, whether a geographical chapter or not,
should be based on granting the maximum independence and responsibility at
the lowest level (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity), taking into
account our fiduciary duties and agreed movement objectives.
3) There are advantages to decentralisation of fundraising operations, which
will become even more important as the movement develops. These advantages
can outweigh any risks in fundraising decentralisation if there is a strong
framework for responsibility and accountability of entities conducting
4) It is important for the health of the movement as a whole that there is a
long-term settlement regarding funds which will enable movement bodies to plan
for growth on horizons of longer than one year.
5) There is considerable scope for future co-operation between the Foundation,
chapters, and other organisations and all parties should actively identify
and resource such opportunities.
6) Such co-operation should include setting out a clear path towards meeting
the requirements of participation in decentralised fundraising.
7) All parties to this discussion should prioritise the wellbeing of
movement as a whole over their own interests or viewpoints.
We urge the Wikimedia Foundation Board and the entire movement to find
to the ongoing discussions about fundraising in line with these principles,
which we consider to be core to the values of the Wikimedia movement.