Hi all,
Because of my tangential involvement with WikiProject:Historic Sites I spotted a note about a Europe wide contest "Wiki loves Monuments" (see http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu/ ).
The UK is included on the map but there is not link to the UK chapter and I wondered if this was a deliberate decision for some reason?
There is a wikiproject page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 - which seems to have lots of broken links) and more detail on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 )
They say "Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 is a public photo contest around monuments, organized by Wikimedia chapters." And aims to improve the quantity and quality of CC licensed images of cultural heritage sites and objects. It may be too late for 2011 (it seems to run in September but unclear) but what about the UK participating in future years?
Rod
Hi Rod,
Unfortunately, we couldn't find a volunteer to lead the UK involvement in the project. I'd love to see us participating in this in future years - but I think it is definitely too late now to organise something properly this year...
Thanks, Mike
On 7 Jul 2011, at 09:41, Rod Ward wrote:
Hi all,
Because of my tangential involvement with WikiProject:Historic Sites I spotted a note about a Europe wide contest “Wiki loves Monuments” (see http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu/ ).
The UK is included on the map but there is not link to the UK chapter and I wondered if this was a deliberate decision for some reason?
There is a wikiproject page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 – which seems to have lots of broken links) and more detail on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 )
They say “Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 is a public photo contest around monuments, organized by Wikimedia chapters.” And aims to improve the quantity and quality of CC licensed images of cultural heritage sites and objects. It may be too late for 2011 (it seems to run in September but unclear) but what about the UK participating in future years?
Rod _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Hi Rod,
We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has volunteered to run it, secondly in the UK we already have the geograph mass upload which still has tens of thousands of uncategoried images on commons. Not all of them are monuments by any means, but enough are that our UK priority is probably more about categorising and using what we already have whilst in other countries it may make more sense to concentrate on filling in the gaps. Thirdly in the UK chapter there seems to be more enthusiasm for collaborations with Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, this has the potential in some collaborations such as the British Museum backstage pass to get our photographers access to stuff that is not normally on Public display.
Having said all that I'm conscious from my own backyard there are still lots of monuments that we don't have images of and I hope that someone comes forward and volunteers to run wiki loves monuments in the UK. I rather suspect that the UK chapter have a bit of budget available if someone needed money for prizes etc.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 7 July 2011 09:41, Rod Ward rodward@plus.net wrote:
Hi all,
Because of my tangential involvement with WikiProject:Historic Sites I spotted a note about a Europe wide contest “Wiki loves Monuments” (see http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu/ ).
The UK is included on the map but there is not link to the UK chapter and I wondered if this was a deliberate decision for some reason?
There is a wikiproject page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 – which seems to have lots of broken links) and more detail on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 )
They say “Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 is a public photo contest around monuments, organized by Wikimedia chapters.” And aims to improve the quantity and quality of CC licensed images of cultural heritage sites and objects. It may be too late for 2011 (it seems to run in September but unclear) but what about the UK participating in future years?
Rod
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Hi Rod,
We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has volunteered to run it,
Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended, (ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might need to be a budget.
secondly in the UK we already have the geograph mass upload which still has tens of thousands of uncategoried images on commons. Not all of them are monuments by any means, but enough are that our UK priority is probably more about categorising and using what we already have whilst in other countries it may make more sense to concentrate on filling in the gaps. Thirdly in the UK chapter there seems to be more enthusiasm for collaborations with Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, this has the potential in some collaborations such as the British Museum backstage pass to get our photographers access to stuff that is not normally on Public display.
There is more than is dreamed of in the GLAM philosophy, though. "Filling in the gaps" is a good definition of how photographic scavenger activity ought to directed.
Charles
Hi Charles,
thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, and couldn't resist to comment.
2011/7/9 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Hi Rod,
We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has volunteered to run it,
Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended, (ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might need to be a budget.
(i) the timeline is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline (but would need tweeking in individual countries) (ii) the concept description is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept and there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the Netherlands with many tips&tricks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mor... (iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK. (iv) this definition is different in every country, because every government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English etc) government already did that for us.
I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in Berlin.
I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked early and directly at the relevant people.
With kind regards,
Lodewijk Gelauff one of the international WLM coordinators
On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Charles,
thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, and couldn't resist to comment.
2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Hi Rod, > > We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and > elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The > honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has > volunteered to run it, Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It is unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended, (ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might need to be a budget.(i) the timeline is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline (but would need tweeking in individual countries) (ii) the concept description is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept and there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the Netherlands with many tips&tricks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mor... (iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.
That would be English Heritage here. There is a file to download on their website. Unfortunately it is very unhelpfully labelled. Also Magnus Manske eventually downloaded it for me: it is in the format of some proprietary GIS (he couldn't tell me what), and for that reason (according to Magnus) the location information is unreadable. When I said there might need to be a budget, I was thinking that WMUK might need to buy proprietary GIS software. (Yes, I know that there would be a major row about that with the ideologues.)
There are other routes: local government officers are responsible for lists in their areas. That is some hundreds of people to contact, however. I found out something about this through an archaeologist friend. There is also an online archaeological database I found, but you have to pay for that also.
(iv) this definition is different in every country, because every government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English etc) government already did that for us.
There is a concept of Scheduled Monument, and what it is goes back to dealing with English Heritage
I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in Berlin.
Actually I asked some questions of WMUK; the only answer seemed to be that a volunteer should come forward who would do everything. I think Magnus got tired when it became plain that it was an issue here of dealing with various kinds of bureaucracy. The information we need to do a good job is undoubtedly there, and is something that should be made available through "freedom of information", but that would take some big effort. Especially to get it in a free file format.
I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked early and directly at the relevant people.
My conclusion has been that the "localisation" of the concept to the UK is problematic, because of the approach taken in our bureaucracy. If WMUK had a proper "research function" then I would not have to be figuring this all out myself freelance. But you had better not get me started on that topic.
Charles
On 13 July 2011 11:06, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
(iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.
That would be English Heritage here.
Um, I thought that WMUK covered all of the UK, not just England. There are equivalent organizations for other parts of the UK too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Heritage#Equivalent_organisations
Andrew
Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about the UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page ( http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr... ).
I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI? After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Rod
On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Charles,
thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, and couldn't resist to comment.
2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Hi Rod, > > We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and > elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The > honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has > volunteered to run it, Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. Itis unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) open-ended, (ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into this matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There might need to be a budget.
(i) the timeline is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline (but would need tweeking in individual countries) (ii) the concept description is available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept and there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the Netherlands with many tips&tricks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mor... (iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible in the UK.
That would be English Heritage here. There is a file to download on their website. Unfortunately it is very unhelpfully labelled. Also Magnus Manske eventually downloaded it for me: it is in the format of some proprietary GIS (he couldn't tell me what), and for that reason (according to Magnus) the location information is unreadable. When I said there might need to be a budget, I was thinking that WMUK might need to buy proprietary GIS software. (Yes, I know that there would be a major row about that with the ideologues.)
There are other routes: local government officers are responsible for lists in their areas. That is some hundreds of people to contact, however. I found out something about this through an archaeologist friend. There is also an online archaeological database I found, but you have to pay for that also.
(iv) this definition is different in every country, because every government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English etc) government already did that for us.
There is a concept of Scheduled Monument, and what it is goes back to dealing with English Heritage
I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in Berlin.
Actually I asked some questions of WMUK; the only answer seemed to be that a volunteer should come forward who would do everything. I think Magnus got tired when it became plain that it was an issue here of dealing with various kinds of bureaucracy. The information we need to do a good job is undoubtedly there, and is something that should be made available through "freedom of information", but that would take some big effort. Especially to get it in a free file format.
I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked early and directly at the relevant people.
My conclusion has been that the "localisation" of the concept to the UK is problematic, because of the approach taken in our bureaucracy. If WMUK had a proper "research function" then I would not have to be figuring this all out myself freelance. But you had better not get me started on that topic.
Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 13/07/2011 11:39, rodward@rodward.plus.com wrote:
Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about the UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
The discussion is certainly worth having.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page ( http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr... ).
I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI? After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Yes, that looks like progress. Technical matters tend to be the long suit among Wikimedians.
Charles
Having looked at some of the entries I would just like to point out that the data seems to be stored by local authority rather than postal geography - which is possibly why one of the sites I previously looked at was riddled with errors.
WSC
On 13 July 2011 12:06, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 13/07/2011 11:39, rodward@rodward.plus.com wrote:
Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about the UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
The discussion is certainly worth having.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page ( http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr... ).
I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI? After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Yes, that looks like progress. Technical matters tend to be the long suit among Wikimedians.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I definitely agree with Charles that a first step would have to be contacting the relevant bureaucracies. Our experience in all countries so far is that they are thrilled to work with us and share information. In general monuments are not considered a sexy topic, and Wikipedia is for those institutions a very interesting partner in that respect. We can motivate large numbers of people and interest them in heritage, and even find numerous mistakes in their databases.
But yes, someone has to do that - and it is definitely sufficient work to keep busy. That is not extraordinary - it happens in over 15 countries throughout Europe, and most of them purely by volunteers. The chapter could especially be helpful in motivating these volunteers, chanelling their efforts and coordinating stuff. Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
I was (and am) very sorry to find out that there was seemingly no interest from the UK to run Wiki Loves Monuments, but that is in the end your call. I do hope that with more time to use, there will be a WLM UK next year.
With kind regards,
Lodewijk
2011/7/13 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com
Having looked at some of the entries I would just like to point out that the data seems to be stored by local authority rather than postal geography - which is possibly why one of the sites I previously looked at was riddled with errors.
WSC
On 13 July 2011 12:06, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 13/07/2011 11:39, rodward@rodward.plus.com wrote:
Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about
the
UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
The discussion is certainly worth having.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page (
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr...
).
I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI? After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdfbut it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use?
Yes, that looks like progress. Technical matters tend to be the long suit among Wikimedians.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
Charles
On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the job description clear).
The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is more likely to see the project through and do it without too much involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very busy board would need to find the time the put together the request for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
On 13/07/2011 17:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 July 2011 14:17, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 13/07/2011 13:12, Lodewijk wrote:
Hence Mike Peel was right when he mentioned that if there are no volunteers, it ain't gonna work.
That is quite true; but simply tagging an issue with {{sofixit}} isn't in itself constructive. My remarks which were noted in the Signpost were intended as a supplement to such "tagging". Work is much more likely to find its volunteers when it is comprehensible.
There are two approaches the chapter could take with this kind of thing. It could just wait and see if anyone takes the initiative and volunteers to do it and then support them if they do (which is what they did) or it would take a pro-active approach and specifically ask for volunteers to do it (which would, as you say, require making the job description clear).
The latter approach is obviously more likely to get results, but there are two downsides I can see: 1) someone that takes the initiative is more likely to see the project through and do it without too much involvement from the already very busy board and 2) that already very busy board would need to find the time the put together the request for volunteers and that time may end up wasted if nobody responds.
There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it was not put on the board agenda. It may have course have been discussed on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside world about it.
The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve matters, it becomes self-defeating.
Charles
On 14 Jul 2011, at 10:09, Charles Matthews wrote:
There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it was not put on the board agenda.
The board has a huge amount to discuss at each meeting, so it not being on the meeting agenda or in the minutes is not a sign that we haven't been thinking about it. It's certainly been on my mind for a long time, and I doubt that there would have been any problem with supporting or funding such a project - but we didn't have anyone that was willing to lead it, set out its needs, and foster a critical mass of involvement.
It may have course have been discussed on the board list; but nothing clear was communicated to the outside world about it.
Please see my email from 15 December, and the ensuing discussion (which you participated in): http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2010-December/005507.html Lodewijk's prod on 4 February: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-February/005627.html and a second prod on 18 February: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-February/005656.html It has also been discussed both on the board mailing list, and also offlist (I approached several individuals about this - without luck). I'm not sure whether we could have done much more (without starting to bug uninterested people with lots of emails) - I'd welcome insight into this, though.
The Dutch experience with WLM is apparently that it brings in new people. There are limitations to the argument that there is too much to do and not enough people to do it. If not enough is invested in the right sorts of research and communications efforts that could improve matters, it becomes self-defeating.
We need a mixture of both - involved community members that can drive this sort of project forward and make sure it matches up with online activities, and then new people to participate, provide fresh enthusiasm, and help out with the project (and hence becoming involved community members ;-) ). One without the other doesn't work
Mike
On 14/07/2011 22:05, Michael Peel wrote:
On 14 Jul 2011, at 10:09, Charles Matthews wrote:
There are certainly other approaches. No serious use has been made of the UK wiki in relation to WLM.
I don't see a WMUK board minute on the matter. I think WMUK participation in WLM went by default earlier in this year, because it was not put on the board agenda.
The board has a huge amount to discuss at each meeting, so it not being on the meeting agenda or in the minutes is not a sign that we haven't been thinking about it. It's certainly been on my mind for a long time, and I doubt that there would have been any problem with supporting or funding such a project - but we didn't have anyone that was willing to lead it, set out its needs, and foster a critical mass of involvement.
We're getting into a loop here, though. Not being on the agenda certainly ensures that no actions for board members will arise. Saying that a volunteer must "set out its needs" assumes too much, it seems - sets the bar too high for a volunteer to come forward. I would have thought, given the discussion in this thread, the need to be able to contact English Heritage or other people using WMUK's name is central; nothing even exploratory could properly be done at arm's length from the board. I don't think the matter was given the attention it deserved, and I suppose you might admit my opinion as informed (at the very least for what did get discussed and how).
All comes down to saying that interested parties must lobby the board members for proper discussion of issues about which they care, in a timely fashion. (If there is anyone out there involved in OpenStreetMap, they at least have a page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments and signs of interest.)
Charles
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org