Hello everyone,
Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my lack of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and working may have led to it being my last, I hope you'll forgive me.
- Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publications using a logo to illustrate a story about an organisation is totally sensible and reasonable. - Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. - Sister charity - I have no problems with the description of WMF and WMUK as sister organisations really. It makes sense to the audience they are writing for. - Who got in touch with the publications? - I confirm that I contacted both Third Sector and Civil Society directly. It was nothing to do with Andreas, or anyone else for that matter. I liaised very closely with the team in San Francisco until very late on Wednesday to get this sorted. They suggested that we give a heads-up on the story to a publication or two that we've dealt with in the past. I didn't provide them any copy, simply advised that the announcement was due. The journalists had covered the story before. This is fairly standard practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the press use over-dramatic language and we have to live with that. As our relationships with the press improve, and they have more positive stories to cover, the default narrative will become repositioned. This will take time.
I hope this answers the questions from earlier in the thread. Please do let me know if there's anything I've missed and I'll do my best to provide any answers or clarity.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
On 9 February 2013 21:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_tru...
This also refers to an "an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia", which is, of course, bunkum.
Oh, look who else quotes this claim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the...
I wonder where they got it from.
To clarify: User:Jayen466 is Andreas Kolbe, who is a Wikipedian in good standing. That article is a draft that may or may not be in the Signpost in Monday. Andreas is also an associate of Wikipediocracy, a website that hosts contributions by people I wouldn't willingly be seen dead with. On the other hand Andreas comes to some Cambridge meetups, and is welcome to do so, and I have been in the pub with him afterwards. DG seems to do the "guilt for association" thing to excess, whatever irritation events in 2012 have caused WMUK and its trustees. Steve Virgin and other Board members from 2010 do bear some collective responsibility for the subsequent governance, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see some humility from them.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org