Thanks for that clarification, Michael.It should be noted, however, for a charity there may be a number of issues they may need to consider:* Do they own copyright of images? Whilst generally images created by employees usually, unless otherwise stated, belong to their employers, the same does not apply to volunteers unless it is specifically included.* Does instructing staff to investigate these issues fall within their charitable objects? Sorting out questions like the one above might take a certain amount of staff time, but unless releasing the images falls within their charitable objectives, diverting staff from core activities could be seen as an inappropriate use of charity resources.This example immediately comes up against all sorts of specific issues which affect charities, perhaps one of the most regulated areas we could come up with.I think Charles Matthews captured the diversity of Wikimedian views in his recent post, and I am not sure that WMUK could successfully synthesise a view point which would reflect this diversity without losing focus. Likewise Ed has indicated that there is a range of material out there which already offers a general view, even if no-one has thought to list this on the Wikipedia article.I can't help of thinking of the wording adjacent to the very simply memorial to Sir Christopher Wren in St Paul's Cathedral: "Reader, if you seek his memorial - look around you."
The day to day reality of Wikipedia is - in itself - probably one of the best argument for open knowledge.So perhaps the document should be "Using Wikimedia Commons as a repository for your Creative Commons media?"Thus guidelines could be provided for what material is suitable, what benefits arise from placing it on commons and what hoops may have to be jumped through in order to satisfy concerns about copyvio.all the best,Fabianaka LeuthaOn 25 February 2016 at 21:47 Michael Maggs <michael@maggs.name> wrote:
I have one very small example. At a wiki meetup last month I met a the chair of a small local charity. They have an archive of interesting local material that the chair would like to consider scanning and releasing as PD or under a free licence. I was asked "do you have a short, simple, non-technical document I can give to my fellow trustees to explain why we ought to be doing this?" Although there is a lot of material out there that explains open knowledge and open licences in great detail it turns out that we don't actually have anything short and simple we can hand out or point members of the public to. And as a national charity that aspires to lead in this area we really ought to have something that concisely answers the question "why should I release my content?"Michael>> WMUK would like to provide better materials aimed at the general public which explain the benefits of open knowledge.
> What is the objective here?
Its now been 2 full working days. Am I to take it that there is no objective?
geniAt the risk of sounding negative, I also don't think this seems like a very productive thing for the charity to spend time on. Lots of materials already exist that explain the benefits of open knowledge - and without a clear audience or channel in mind, creating more media seems a bit pointless._______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk