On 23 February 2016 at 12:27, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: What is the objective here?

At the risk of sounding negative, I also don't think this seems like a very productive thing for the charity to spend time on. Lots of materials already exist that explain the benefits of open knowledge - and without a clear audience or channel in mind, creating more media seems a bit pointless. Edward Saperia Founder Newspeak House email • facebook • twitter • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Surely https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM must have one, or have enough material to make one trivial to pull together?

Thanks for that clarification, Michael. It should be noted, however, for a charity there may be a number of issues they may need to consider: * Do they own copyright of images? Whilst generally images created by employees usually, unless otherwise stated, belong to their employers, the same does not apply to volunteers unless it is specifically included. * Does instructing staff to investigate these issues fall within their charitable objects? Sorting out questions like the one above might take a certain amount of staff time, but unless releasing the images falls within their charitable objectives, diverting staff from core activities could be seen as an inappropriate use of charity resources. This example immediately comes up against all sorts of specific issues which affect charities, perhaps one of the most regulated areas we could come up with. I think Charles Matthews captured the diversity of Wikimedian views in his recent post, and I am not sure that WMUK could successfully synthesise a view point which would reflect this diversity without losing focus. Likewise Ed has indicated that there is a range of material out there which already offers a general view, even if no-one has thought to list this on the Wikipedia article. I can't help of thinking of the wording adjacent to the very simply memorial to Sir Christopher Wren in St Paul's Cathedral: "Reader, if you seek his memorial - look around you." The day to day reality of Wikipedia *is - *in itself - probably one of the best argument for open knowledge. So perhaps the document should be "Using Wikimedia Commons as a repository for your Creative Commons media?" Thus guidelines could be provided for what material is suitable, what benefits arise from placing it on commons and what hoops may have to be jumped through in order to satisfy concerns about copyvio. all the best, Fabian aka Leutha On 25 February 2016 at 21:47 Michael Maggs &lt;michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote: I have one very small example. At a wiki meetup last month I met a the chair of a small local charity. They have an archive of interesting local material that the chair would like to consider scanning and releasing as PD or under a free licence. I was asked "do you have a short, simple, non-technical document I can give to my fellow trustees to explain why we ought to be doing this?" Although there is a lot of material out there that explains open knowledge and open licences in great detail it turns out that we don't actually have anything short and simple we can hand out or point members of the public to. And as a national charity that aspires to lead in this area we really ought to have something that concisely answers the question "why should I release my content?" Michael On 25 Feb 2016, at 18:31, Edward Saperia &lt;edsaperia(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: which explain the benefits of open knowledge. Its now been 2 full working days. Am I to take it that there is no objective? geni At the risk of sounding negative, I also don't think this seems like a very productive thing for the charity to spend time on. Lots of materials already exist that explain the benefits of open knowledge - and without a clear audience or channel in mind, creating more media seems a bit pointless. *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House <http://www.nwspk.com/> email &lt;edsaperia(a)gmail.com&gt; • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG _______________________________________________ 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

On 25 February 2016 at 21:47 Michael Maggs &lt;michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote:

And as a national charity that aspires to lead in this area we really ought to have something that concisely answers the question "why should I release my content?"

On 26 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On 26 February 2016 at 09:41, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: I would make the flyer generic, it can then be used by other English speaking organizations and shared on the Outreach wiki rather than hidden away on the chapter wiki and appearing like proprietary marketing. WMUK has co-funded many Wikimedian in Residence positions over the last five years, several have contributed materials and case studies to the Outreach wiki, contacting them and the current Wikimedians in Residence directly would get the flier produced on a good-will basis with no staff support needed. It could even be declared as an outcome of one of the funded projects, if that is important. Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Thanks for all your comments and input into this. I can understand why those working closely within the open knowledge sector might feel there isn't a need for information about why this matters, but the audience we're aiming this at are people working in smaller organisations and societies, or simply interested members of the public, who need an introduction to open.

Not really Gordo! Sorry if I wasn't clear. As Sara has offered to write the text, I'll discuss the brief in more detail with her - although happy for others to be involved, of course :)

At the risk of sounding negative, I also don't think this seems like a very productive thing for the charity to spend time on. Lots of materials already exist that explain the benefits of open knowledge - and without a clear audience or channel in mind, creating more media seems a bit pointless. * *