Imperial War Museum, meetings with Wikimedia UK - Wikimediauk-l

28 Jul 2017

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 &lt;chasemewiki(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne &lt;john(a)bodkinprints.co.uk&gt; 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…
> > 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(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae --
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae