Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Harry Mitchell]

Fae,

The connection would appear to be that your communications were perceived
as hostile, threatening, and passive-aggressive and that Wikimedia UK lost
a potential partnership as a result - a recurring theme with your
involvement within Wikimedia UK. And now you're discussing using similar
tactics with another leading national institution and recalcitrantly
refusing to accept the negative feedback you're receiving. That will
certainly ring bells for anyone who was involved back in 2013.

Even just based on your recent posts to this list, "hostile, threatening,
and passive-aggressive" seems like an objectively fair summary of your
communication style, not to mention the abject horror of other members of
the community at going to war with potential partners. After so many years,
it's difficult not to conclude that that is exactly how you intend your
communications to come across, but if it honestly isn't, I implore you to
go away and rethink your communication style.

Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
+44 (0) 7507 536 971
Skype: harry_j_mitchell

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Fæ  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 
> 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
> >  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"  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 
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

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"  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  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 
> 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
> >>  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"  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 
> 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
>  

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Fæ]

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  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
>  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"  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  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.
>>> > 

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

apologies, strike the "forwarding private correspondence" bit. My
point stands, nonetheless...

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Chris Keating
 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
>  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"  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  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 

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Chris Keating]

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
 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"  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  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,
>> > 

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK

[Stevie Benton]

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"  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  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  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne  wrote:
> >> > The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell"