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
