"
On 7 April 2014 11:00, Jon Davies <jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> people who had been/are employed as WiR
> plus one other person who had been
> heavily involved in the employment and a trustee.

Jon, In recent weeks, we've had a consultation which was launched by
staff member claiming that "as a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in
Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012".

When it was pointed out that this was incorrect, since the chapter's
first WiR was in 2011, it was explained by another staff member that:

"there were residencies that are not taken into considerations here.
We wanted to consider the residencies that had institutions in
significant cooperation with the chapter"

This despite the fact that the 2011 ARKive residency did indeed
involve an institution in significant cooperation with the chapter.

Then I found that the ARKive residency had been omitted from the list
of past residencies on the WMUK wiki:

  https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Cultural_partnerships&diff=prev&oldid=54268

Now we have the event this weekend, where the ARKive residency and my
feedback on that project (not to mention my other residencies) were
apparently deemed irrelevant.

On their own, any one of these might be considered an unfortunate
oversight, but viewing the three together, especially after the first
had been highlighted, one might wonder whether they reflect more than
coincidence.

> I hope that explains it and that we will encourage Andy
> and everyone to continue to participate in this review.

I gave up on the questionnaire for reasons that Mike P. and Harry have
already highlighted.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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