Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publications using a logo to illustrate a story about an organisation is totally sensible and reasonable.
Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement.
Sister charity - I have no problems with the description of WMF and WMUK as sister organisations really. It makes sense to the audience they are writing for.
Who got in touch with the publications? - I confirm that I contacted both Third Sector and Civil Society directly. It was nothing to do with Andreas, or anyone else for that matter. I liaised very closely with the team in San Francisco until very late on Wednesday to get this sorted. They suggested that we give a heads-up on the story to a publication or two that we've dealt with in the past. I didn't provide them any copy, simply advised that the announcement was due. The journalists had covered the story before. This is fairly standard practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the press use over-dramatic language and we have to live with that. As our relationships with the press improve, and they have more positive stories to cover, the default narrative will become repositioned. This will take time.

I hope this answers the questions from earlier in the thread. Please do let me know if there's anything I've missed and I'll do my best to provide any answers or clarity.

On 9 February 2013 21:56, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
>
>> This also refers to an "an intellectual property dispute over
>> QRPedia", which is, of course, bunkum.
>
>
> Oh, look who else quotes this claim:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media
>
> I wonder where they got it from.

To clarify: User:Jayen466 is Andreas Kolbe, who is a Wikipedian in
good standing. That article is a draft that may or may not be in the
Signpost in Monday. Andreas is also an associate of Wikipediocracy, a
website that hosts contributions by people I wouldn't willingly be
seen dead with. On the other hand Andreas comes to some Cambridge
meetups, and is welcome to do so, and I have been in the pub with him
afterwards. DG seems to do the "guilt for association" thing to
excess, whatever irritation events in 2012 have caused WMUK and its
trustees. Steve Virgin and other Board members from 2010 do bear some
collective responsibility for the subsequent governance, as far as I'm
concerned. I'd rather see some humility from them.

Charles

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK 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. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.