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

Reply via email to