Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

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

> shake my head and laugh at the inevitability of this kind of

> > WMUK would be ill-advised to allow a partnership of this importance to

> frittered away in this manner. > > Que sera, sera. I write with no hat on other than someone who cares

> 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

> rain). > > I think that those who were around at the time are more than aware of

> 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>

>> > First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae,

>> > want >> > to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way

>> > 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

>> > 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

>> > 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

>> > 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

>> > 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,

>> > it >> > made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel

>> > 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,

>> > sometimes, our passion for change - for righting the wrongs in the

>> > - >> > makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural

>> > 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

>> > - >> > social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like

>> > (which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader),

>> > counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, >> > engendering >> > change through example, and although social media campaigns and

>> > 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

>> > 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>

>> >> > The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy

>> >> > photography - see >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > [http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%

>> >> > section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are >> >> > permitted >> >> > to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash

>> >> > or >> >> > flash >> >> > units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a

>> >> > 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

>> >> > website. >> >> > >> >> > But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated >> >> > back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the

>> >> > will be >> >> > uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left

>> >> > 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

>> >> > an >> >> > appalling vista for middle management. >> >> > >> >> > No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms,

>> >> > in >> >> > the >> >> > loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not

>> >> > 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

>> >> 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

>> >> volunteers like us knocking around with no "professional"

>> >> 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

>> >> 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

>> >> the facts about their continued copyfraud, and they have not lifted

>> >> finger to correct it. I guess they are too big to care about my

>> >> that continue to point out this problem,[2] however it would be

>> >> if WMUK wanted to invest some resources into changing their minds;

>> >> 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

>> >> 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk