Though if you do happen to dig it out, it would not be appropriate to discuss the contents on a public list.
On 28 Jul 2017 22:08, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
