Andy,
I get the point that you're making, but the review is of the projects run through the office. I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else, but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 18:38, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:07, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I have been focusing on a specific group of residencies, however, it would indeed be useful to mention the project in the background information, which I now have done.
Thank you. The page now reads:
"We have been involved with projects at the British Museum, and the ARKive. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report."
However, the residency at ARKive (not at "the ARKive") also reported to, and had an agreement signed with, WikimediaUK.