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" <chriskeatingwiki@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 <faewik@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 <chriskeatingwiki@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.benton@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" <faewik@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 <chasemewiki@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 <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne <john@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
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>> --
>>>> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>>> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
>
>
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk