You might refer to, inter alia, my email to you of 8.39pm on 21 May 2013. Regards,
Chris On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I don't see the connection between my membership of the charity and > these claims being made publicly now, by a past employee, about > critical feedback from the IWM. > > No I don't know what was said in those meetings, and it would be a > surprise if as a fellow trustee you knew about this feedback and never > thought to share it with me or the board. > > Thanks for your retraction of your false claim that I have published > any private correspondence. > > Thanks, > Fae > > On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> This is hilarious. As someone who was around at the time, all I can do is >>> shake my head and laugh at the inevitability of this kind of conversation. >>> >>> WMUK would be ill-advised to allow a partnership of this importance to be >>> frittered away in this manner. >>> >>> Que sera, sera. I write with no hat on other than someone who cares deeply >>> 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 the >>> rain). >>> >>> I think that those who were around at the time are more than aware of the >>> circumstances Richard refers to, and many others besides. >>> >>> On 28 Jul 2017 21:01, "Fæ" <fae...@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 <chasemew...@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 <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne <j...@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.pdf >>>> >> > 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 >>>> >> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails. >>>> >> 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet >>>> >> on copyfraud from earlier today. >>>> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >>>> >> Fae >>>> >> -- >>>> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>>> -- >>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > > > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
