A bit of a scrabble but thanks to Tom we may have put our line in the sand.
Will send later as amended unless any objections.
Comment please
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Office_Consultation
--
Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. 07976 935 986
tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom.
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent
non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor
responsibility for its contents.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Today, I briefly flicked through the Intellectual Property Office consultation.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-2011-copyright
I didn't know it was running until today.
I'm thinking of sending in a few answers to a few of the questions
asked, but I'm wondering if there is any interested in rapidly
producing a WMUK response. The closing date is tomorrow, so if there
is any interest, we'd need to act super fast.
I'd suggest broadly the issues that are probably of direct interest to
Wikimedia are as follows:
1. On orphan works, making the case for much older orphan works to go
out of copyright rather than entering "orphan limbo". The proposed
commercially-reusable orphan limbo is fine for commercial reusers like
broadcasters or newspapers: it just means they have to do some due
diligence and they can then use orphan works, safe in the knowledge
that if the owner actually does turn up, they can pay market rate for
it.
2. Also on orphan works, pointing out that "non-commercial" exceptions
aren't actually that useful, as the moral intuition they are trying to
tap into doesn't actually fall along the non-commercial vs. commercial
line but along the acting for the common good vs. private profiteering
line, and there are commercial uses that are for the common good (for
instance, the Internet Archive might send out a book van charging 50p
a copy for on-demand printed books. Commercial use, it could
potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make
Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)
3. On extended collective licensing and collecting societies, we
should probably make clear what position, say, photographers or
musicians who produce CC works for use in Wikimedia projects are in.
And how Wikimedia works would fit in with a collective licensing
situation: if someone were to take a photo of mine from Commons that's
under CC BY SA, and uses it outside of the terms of the license,
should they be able to pay for it through a collective licensing
arrangement or through a collecting society? Part of the point of CC
BY SA and free culture is to encourage people to use the works under
the terms of the license.
4. On the exceptions to copyright, it seems there's a pretty
uncontroversial Wikimedian take on most of them. Specifically of
interest I'd say would be the "Use of works for quotation and
reporting current events", which is something that Wikinewsies (and
people who write Wikipedia articles about current affairs) would find
useful. And I'd say the public administration thing we should probably
support too: it seems reasonable to think that Wikimedia might want to
host rights-cleared work from the UK government that are under
discussion in there.
Any thoughts on responding?
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
All,
We’re happy to announce our fourth employee at the UK chapter – Stevie
Benton. Stevie will be taking on the communications role for the
charity. He has worked in non-profit communications for over eight years
in a variety of disciplines, including internal communications, press,
online and multimedia. He believes that education and access to
information are fundamental to the development of humanity.
He’ll be working from the office in Old Street, but believes in being
very hands-on and is looking forward to getting out and meeting as many
Wikimedians, volunteers and partners as possible. Stevie is interested
in all kinds of art, literature and music, enjoys video games and is a
long-suffering fan of the Philadelphia Eagles NFL team.
Over the next few weeks Stevie will be working with Wikipedians to
promote the Monmouthpedia Project in April and our AGM in the Science
Museum in early May. He can be contacted at at
stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk, or by phone on 0207 065 0993.
Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.
Interesting show tonight on BBC3 at 9pm: "The Antisocial Network".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dwg1n
Might be an interesting watch for those of us who deal with trolling on
an everyday basis!
Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.
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
widely available.
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!
Brian McNeil.
--
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!
Hi everyone,
For anyone interested in military biography or Norwegian subjects (or
both), please see this email from a Norwegian wikipedian running a project
to improve coverage of recipients of the Norwegian equivalent of the
Victoria Cross. They mainly seem to be from WW2.
Please contact Ulf directly (on or off wiki) if you'd like to get involved.
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ulf Larsen <ulflarsen(a)gmail.com>
Hi, I got your mail address through Wikimedia UK. I am Ulf Larsen,
voluntary contributor to Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål and I am trying to
find someone interested in helping us filling out the "red articles"
regarding british citizen's on this list:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_tildelinger_av_Krigskorset
This medal is the most prestigious one can receive for combat service and
we would like to have it complete, with biographies of all listed there,
below is the main article about the medal:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krigskorset
I have posted a message on the Military project's project page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Mi…
We have also made a kind of mini project page on the discussion page of the
list of recipients:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Liste_over_tildelinger_av_Krigskorse…
There we have listed all the missing biographies. We have established
contacts both with Polish and French contributors so if we could find
someone in the UK that could help fill out the missing biographies of the
brave UK soldiers that received this medal we would be very happy about
that! :-)
I have tried before to post on various talkpages on the english language
Wikipedia, but no result from that.
Is this something you could help me in, or put me in contact with someone
that is interested?
As a prize we are open for trying to arrange some kind of mini-competition
about it, we have good relations with the airline Norwegian Air Shuttle and
thus may be able to offer free tickets to Oslo for two persons or more, so
for anyone interested that win it could be a nice weekend in Oslo.
Best regards, Ulf Larsen
Voluntary contributor Wikipedia & member of Wikimedia Norway
Hi all,
One of the actions from theLondon OTRS workshop in January was that I would set up a second workshop, aimed at new OTRS agents (mainly from the UK and those parts of Europe from which the UK is easily accessible).
I'm looking for suggestions on how we can most effectively advertise such an event to the target audience (in particular those who don't subscribe to the mailing lists, and those not active on the English Wikipedia). All input welcome, and I'm hoping to perhaps set something up for early summer (June looks nice and empty at the minute), so please do spread this far and wide, and feel free to re-post it to other mailing lists.
Cheers,
Harry
*
*
Dear all,
Some of you have been following the lengthy ongoing debate about the future
of fundraising in the Wikimedia movement. Mike Peel and I attended a
meeting the weekend before last in Paris, with representatives of the
Wikimedia Foundation and other chapters, where these issues were discussed
at some length.
Earlier this week, the Board received another email from Sue seeking
clarification on our position as a chapter. (Sue's letter is right at the
bottom of this email). The Board are going to talk about this in a phone
call on Saturday, but we wanted to share our current draft response and get
some input. The current draft is below (I have summarised Sue's questions).
*
*
Please feel free to respond on- or off-list.
*
*
(As this is a publically archived list I ought to stress these replies are
a personal discussion draft and have not been adopted as an official
position by Wikimedia UK).
*
*
*Do we still want to payment-process*
Yes we do. We think it adds value to the movement - most obviously through
Gift Aid, but we also think we can add value to the fundraiser in other
ways (e.g. by generating recurring rather than one-off income) and because
of the long-term value of the data in the fundraiser for both further
fundraising work and outreach. There is also a risk of confusion for some
donors who are used to giving to Wikimedia UK, or are already doing so on a
recurring basis.
Furthermore, we don't see how taking an administrative decision to stop
raising money in a tax-deductible way can possibly be in donors' best
interests. (Chris has actually put up a very cautious cost-benefit analysis
on meta here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/WMF…
-
we draw your attenttion to it)
*Are there other specific local requirements or incentives*
So far as we can tell, everything has been explored. The reasons why
Wikimedia UK participating is a good idea include the 25% extra from the
donations possible through Gift Aid, exploiting local knowledge of donors,
and the potential for us to make use of fundraiser data for other
fundraising and outreach work. We think these are strong reasons.
*Are there any other problems transferring money internationally*
Don't think so. We know we can send the Foundation what are, in legal
terms, discretionary grants restricted towards the charitable objectives
the Foundation and Wikimedia UK share. We already do this and can continue
to do this on the same basis.
*Increased visibility of our internal workings*
Since last August we've been engaged in a dialogue with you about these
issues. We expect that to continue. We're optimistic that the Chapters
Council, when up and running, will mean that many (though not all) of these
things stop being a burden on the Foundation and become a peer review
activity for Chapters. Furthermore, we think that it is just as important
for us to be transparent and accountable were we to be spending money which
we had received in the form of a grant, than if we were taking donors'
money directly.
*What if the answer's still No*
We think there is now a fairly clear scenario which enables chapters to
payment-process without prejudicing the Foundation's fiduciary duties, and
without creating the idea that Chapters are dependent for their growth on
payment-processing. There are many benefits to this scenario and few
drawbacks. We would be disappointed if the Foundation did not choose this
scenario.
On 23 February 2012 20:52, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> I'm so sorry I didn't see you at the Paris meeting, but I'm sure
> you've heard from Chris and Mike --- it was very good. I am really
> grateful to Christophe -- he did a great job of setting a
> constructive, positive tone: it was fabulous :-)
>
> The meeting gave everybody there a chance to discuss where we're at,
> share our current thinking, and kick around possible paths going
> forward. As you know, we've been talking about these issues for many
> months: it was good to have some F2F time together on them. You
> probably also know that on March 9, I’m expected to deliver to the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board a set of recommendations, one of which will
> cover who should process donations that come in via the project sites.
>
> The purpose of this note is for me to gain further clarity about the
> UK chapter’s current position on payment processing. I think I have a
> sense of where you're at, but I'm not 100% positive. So the purpose of
> this note is to get clarity where I'm not sure, particularly in light
> of the letter the Board published a few weeks ago.
>
> First, some background. I want to be careful not to aim to speak on
> behalf of the WMF Board of Trustees: at this point, it hasn’t decided
> anything beyond what it's already published, and I do not yet know
> what it will ultimately decide. Having said that, the Board did say
> earlier this month that it is "sharpening" the criteria for payment
> processing. That payment-processing is not a natural path to growth
> for a chapter, and that in future, most chapters won’t
> payment-process. It also said that if and when chapters
> payment-process, it would be done primarily for reasons of tax,
> operational efficiency, only where payment-processing is not in
> conflict with funds dissemination principles and goals, and that
> payment-processing should avoid a perception of "entitlement." There
> was some initial confusion about what “entitlement” means, and in
> Paris the Board members clarified that it means payment-processing
> chapters would not be entitled to keep funds they process: funds for
> payment-processing chapters would go through the same dissemination
> process as funds to non-payment-processing chapters.
>
> In light of all this, and as I start drafting my final recommendations
> to the Board, there are a few questions I’d like to ask you. I'm
> cognizant that responding might seem burdensome for you -- you likely
> don't have a Board meeting scheduled in the next few weeks, and I
> expect you may not have super-easy, quick-turnaround access to legal
> counsel. So please rest assured that my goal here isn't to burden you.
> Some of these questions may be easy to answer -- if so, great! To the
> extent that they are hard to answer, I'd be happy if you could give me
> a provisional or partial answer. Please don't feel like you need to
> drop everything to give me definitive responses, and please know that
> any and all information will be helpful, even if it's incomplete :-)
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> * Assuming all of the above holds true (specifically, that the chapter
> has no entitlement to retain or to control dissemination of the funds
> it processes), does the UK chapter still aspire to payment-process in
> 2012 and beyond? If you would still prefer to payment process, I’d
> appreciate if you could share with me your thinking about why.
> Basically -- how do you feel payment-processing would benefit your
> chapter, and/or the Wikimedia movement overall?
>
> * Are there specific local requirements or incentives (beyond Gift
> Aid, which I know about) that you're aware of that might make it more
> difficult or costly for the Wikimedia Foundation to payment process
> donations from the UK, relative to the UK chapter doing it?
>
> * I think the UK chapter and the Wikimedia Foundation have a pretty
> good understanding of the restrictions you would face, if you did
> payment-process, in transferring money to the Wikimedia Foundation. (I
> mean, restrictions capping the amount or percentage you can transfer,
> or restrictions on how that money can be used.) But I’d like to ask
> you: in addition to what we’ve discussed in the past, is there
> anything new that the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware of? We are
> now (for the first time) talking about payment-processing chapters not
> having an entitlement to the money raised out of their geography, so
> what I’m mainly asking about is that. Assuming you weren’t entitled to
> retain money, or control its distribution internationally -- does that
> create any new problems or impediments for your chapter in freely
> moving money out of the UK?
>
> * If you were to payment-process in 2012 and beyond, the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board of Trustees might want to have increased visibility
> into your chapter’s internal workings, to make sure it’s able to
> confidently uphold its fiduciary responsibilities. Just as
> illustrative examples -- this might include an assessment or
> independent audit of your chapter’s legal and financial practices and
> policies, site visits to your chapter’s offices, and/or the Wikimedia
> Foundation requesting a seat on your Audit committee or on your Board
> of Trustees. In general, can you provide your perspective on
> requirements such as those? I remember that in the UK the idea of
> reserved Board seats for this kind of thing seems less culturally
> acceptable than in the United States: is that true? Are there other
> legal or cultural impediments to the kinds of possibilities I've
> raised, and if so, are there alternatives that might be better or more
> appropriate? (Please bear in mind I’m not necessarily saying that the
> Wikimedia Foundation would propose any of these: at this point I don’t
> know. Before the Board considers the options, I’d like to get your
> general thinking.)
>
> * If your chapter were not going to payment-process in 2012 and
> beyond, either because the Wikimedia Foundation disallowed it, or
> because you chose not to, what would the reaction of your chapter be?
> ("Your chapter" could mean you, the Board as a whole, or chapter
> members.) Would the UK chapter want to be allowed to payment process
> in 2012, even if you couldn’t payment-process in years after that? (If
> so, why?) What problems might stopping payment-processing cause for
> your chapter, and are there ways the Wikimedia Foundation could help
> resolve them? What kinds of issues would we need to resolve in a
> transition period? Fast answers are okay here: I am really aiming to
> make sure I don't miss anything important.
>
> Just so you know: I am also sending similar questions to the German,
> French and Swiss chapters. If you want to coordinate your responses
> with those chapter heads, that's fine with me. I'm sending this mail
> to you individually because I'm primarily interested in the position
> of the UK chapter and the other chapters that have recently
> payment-processed, not in the general thoughts of observers on our
> mailing lists. I feel like there's been lots of opportunity for people
> to express general opinions. That said, I am totally fine with you
> forwarding this mail to anyone you like, and/or discussing this on
> lists such as the chapters list or internal-l. I don't consider it
> confidential, and I am fine with you freely sharing it with anyone you
> like.
>
> Like I said earlier in this note, my final recommendations are due to
> the Board on March 9. So I would very much appreciate a reply --even a
> partial one-- by March 2, if that's possible for you. I'm CCing Barry
> because I'll be travelling next week, and I want to make sure we have
> an open line for easy communication, especially if anything in this
> mail seems unclear or confusing.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> --