Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK - Wikimediauk-l

28 Jul 2017

      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@gmail.com wrote:
...
First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae, so I want
to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way possible. I
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 same 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 very
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 solution
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 talking 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, and it
made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel like 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, but
sometimes, our passion for change - for righting the wrongs in the world -
makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural institutions.
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 discussions -
social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud"
(which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are
counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering
change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming 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 when our
strength in WMUK is our professional connections throughout the third sector
and "GLAM" world.
On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
...
On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne john@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote:
...
The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on
photography - see
[http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%20Regulations%20FINAL....
section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are
permitted
to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or
flash
units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. 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 their
website.
But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated
back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images
will be
uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some
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 Trustees" - an
appalling vista for middle management.
No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected in
the
loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure
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 the
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 unpaid
volunteers like us knocking around with no "professional" affiliation
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 to
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 them
the facts about their continued copyfraud, and they have not lifted a
finger to correct it. I guess they are too big to care about my tweets
that continue to point out this problem,[2] however it would be great
if WMUK wanted to invest some resources into changing their minds; in
line with our shared vision of open knowledge and free access to
public content.
Links

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails.
https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet

on copyfraud from earlier today.
Cheers,
Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae