*sigh* caught in the reply-issue....
On 18 September 2012 00:04, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 18 September 2012 00:03, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred
to or
introduced as a WMUK project.
(e.g. this Wikimania video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg)
Obviously that is a concerning facet that needs to be cleared up also.
That video just says WMUK is looking forward to supporting the project (which it is - that's why an MoU is being discussed). It doesn't say it is a WMUK project (at least, I didn't notice anything saying that).
There has been some confusion about WMUK's involvement, though, certainly. In particular, the project has been repeatedly linked to Monmouthpedia in a way that suggests it is being organised by the same organisation. The "GibraltarpediA" mark doesn't help - in fact, it probably infringes on the "MonmouthpediA" mark. I know there were some issues with the use of the Wikipedia mark, which I believe were resolved with the WMF. I'm not aware of WMUK granting a license to use the "[Placename]pediA" mark, though.
It goes back to your point about demarcation though. At no point did Roger really identify this as *his project*. And the outro discussing WMUK leaves one assuming (quite fairly, I think) it is a WMUK project.
Tom