Though if you do happen to dig it out, it would not be appropriate to
discuss the contents on a public list.
On 28 Jul 2017 22:08, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You might refer to, inter alia, my email to you of
8.39pm on 21 May 2013.
Regards,
Chris
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Chris,
I don't see the connection between my membership of the charity and
these claims being made publicly now, by a past employee, about
critical feedback from the IWM.
No I don't know what was said in those meetings, and it would be a
surprise if as a fellow trustee you knew about this feedback and never
thought to share it with me or the board.
Thanks for your retraction of your false claim that I have published
any private correspondence.
Thanks,
Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Oh god really Fae?
>
> The Board finally agreed to accept your membership application, no
> doubt persuaded water had passed under the bridge, and bygones were
> now bygones.
>
> Then within weeks you are forwarding private correspondence to this
> list and "demanding answers" about things that happened in 2013.
>
> You already know the answers.
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Stevie Benton
> <stevie.d.benton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is hilarious. As someone who was around at the time, all I can do
is
>> shake my head and laugh at the
inevitability of this kind of
conversation.
>>
>> WMUK would be ill-advised to allow a partnership of this importance to
be
>> frittered away in this manner.
>>
>> Que sera, sera. I write with no hat on other than someone who cares
deeply
>> about open knowledge and also the chapter
(well, my sun hat, but that
>> denotes no role other than someone daft enough to wear it indoors, in
the
>> rain).
>>
>> I think that those who were around at the time are more than aware of
the
>> circumstances Richard refers to, and many
others besides.
>>
>> On 28 Jul 2017 21:01, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Could WMUK do a little research on this please?
>>>
>>> If this feedback on my correspondence with the Imperial War Museum was
>>> received from the IWM during meetings with employees of the charity in
>>> January 2013, this happened when I was a trustee on the board. I do
>>> not recall feedback like this getting shared with the board from the
>>> CEO, nor was I personally approached or informed separate from the
>>> board. It's the sort of thing I doubt I would forget, though I do
>>> recall being critical during a board meeting about any potential WMUK
>>> project or partnership with the IWM at that time, unless their use of
>>> misleading claims of copyright on public domain media changed first.
>>>
>>> As there were discussions about me, I would appreciate the notes held
>>> by WMUK from these meetings about a potential WMUK project being
>>> shared with me, even at this late stage. It seems fair that the WMUK
>>> CEO check the facts being made public on this list, and whether this
>>> feedback was shared with the board of trustees at the time.
>>>
>>> This is not a reply to Richard Symonds, for reasons known to the WMUK
>>> board and CEO.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Fae
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2017 at 20:32, Richard Symonds <chasemewiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> > First: I know me and you
haven't got on very well in the past Fae,
so I
>>> > want
>>> > to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way
possible. I
>>> > really appreciate the work you
do on Commons, and am deeply struck
by
>>> > the
>>> > passion with which you approach our shared goal. We're both on the
same
>>> > team
>>> > - working for free knowledge.
>>> >
>>> > That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope.
I'm
not
>>> > sure
>>> > if further emails like the ones at
>>> >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be
very
>>> > helpful - they didn't work
at the time, and clearly haven't worked
in
>>> > the
>>> > past four years, despite your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in
that
>>> > case
>>> > was that they didn't agree with you that it was copyfraud. The
solution
>>> > would be a sit-down talk between
professionals, that is as you say,
>>> > "invest
>>> > some resources into changing their minds".
>>> >
>>> > I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was
talking
>>> > to
>>> > the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving
>>> > force
>>> > behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had
>>> > several
>>> > meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that
you
>>> > were
>>> > sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and
>>> > generally
>>> > unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite
correspondence, and
>>> > it
>>> > made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel
like
>>> > they
>>> > could be a part of a community that spoke to people like that. I
know
>>> > that
>>> > to you the emails were professional and to the point, and
objectively
>>> > correct. But to them it came
across as unprofessional, and that it
>>> > happened
>>> > during the run-up to the WWI centenary made it very difficult for
>>> > Wikipedia
>>> > to get involved in the commemorations in any more than a passive
>>> > capacity.
>>> > You redoubled your efforts after you saw the IWM refusing to
change, but
>>> > sometimes, our passion for
change - for righting the wrongs in the
world
>>> > -
>>> > makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural
institutions.
>>> > This pushed them away, and made
it harder for them to understand our
>>> > point
>>> > of view.
>>> >
>>> > The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional
discussions
>>> > -
>>> > social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like
"copyfraud"
>>> > (which invoke thoughts of
criminality in the minds of the reader),
are
>>> > counterproductive. We need to be
professional and approachable,
>>> > engendering
>>> > change through example, and although social media campaigns and
shaming
>>> > work
>>> > sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old
>>> > institution),
>>> > we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option, especially
when
>>> > our
>>> > strength in WMUK is our professional connections throughout the
third
>>> > sector
>>> > and "GLAM" world.
>>> >
>>> > On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne <john(a)bodkinprints.co.uk>
wrote:
>>> >> > The BM still in effect
operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy
on
>>> >> > photography - see
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [
http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%
20Regulations%20FINAL.pdf
>>> >> > section 8.1] here:
"8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you
are
>>> >> > permitted
>>> >> > to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash
bulbs
>>> >> > or
>>> >> > flash
>>> >> > units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a
stand.
>>> >> > You
>>> >> > may
>>> >> > use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your
own
>>> >> > private
>>> >> > and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images
on
their
>>> >> > website.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly
facilitated
>>> >> > back-stage photography
of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the
images
>>> >> > will be
>>> >> > uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left
some
>>> >> > years
>>> >> > ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the
BM because
of
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > size
>>> >> > of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the
Trustees" -
>>> >> > an
>>> >> > appalling vista for middle management.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms,
reflected
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm
not
sure
>>> >> > there's
>>> >> > much point in going to or after them.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy
to
>>> >> > pressure -
>>> >> > in practice things work ok as it is, normally.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > John
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was
>>> >> illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my
>>> >> personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and
>>> >> other large academic related institutions. In general we get a
>>> >> positive response from curators and researchers who may plan an
>>> >> exhibition, in fact their issues with our open projects are spot on
>>> >> and match our own concerns. But this is a very separate world from
the
>>> >> operations and marketing
middle management who make the final
>>> >> decisions on loan policies and public exhibition standards.
>>> >>
>>> >> From the perspective of open knowledge advocates, after meetings
and
>>> >> presentations I have had
curators shake my hand and thank me for
>>> >> saying things they cannot. One of the great benefits of having
unpaid
>>> >> volunteers like us knocking
around with no "professional"
affiliation
>>> >> with the institutions that
may manage the content we are passionate
>>> >> about, is that we can say obvious things, without worrying too much
>>> >> about diplomacy or PR.
>>> >>
>>> >> Despite being criticised for making waves every now and then,
it's
>>> >> those personal thanks for doing what I do that will encourage me to
>>> >> call unambiguous copyfraud, copyfraud, whenever I see it.
>>> >>
>>> >> If anyone wants to see my previous efforts trying politely talking
to
>>> >> IP lawyers representing an
institution that simply does not get it,
>>> >> they can take a look at my correspondence with the Imperial War
>>> >> Museum.[1] It's four years since I very politely and clearly
gave
them
>>> >> the facts about their
continued copyfraud, and they have not
lifted a
>>> >> finger to correct it. I
guess they are too big to care about my
tweets
>>> >> that continue to point out
this problem,[2] however it would be
great
>>> >> if WMUK wanted to invest
some resources into changing their minds;
in
>>> >> line with our shared vision
of open knowledge and free access to
>>> >> public content.
>>> >>
>>> >> Links
>>> >> 1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM
emails.
tweet
> >> on copyfraud from earlier today.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> --
> faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk