*sigh* caught in the reply-issue.... On 18 September 2012 00:04, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 00:03, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> > OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred >> to or >> > introduced as a WMUK project. >> > >> > (e.g. this Wikimania video: >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg) >> > >> > Obviously that is a concerning facet that needs to be cleared up also. >> >> That video just says WMUK is looking forward to supporting the project >> (which it is - that's why an MoU is being discussed). It doesn't say >> it is a WMUK project (at least, I didn't notice anything saying that). >> >> There has been some confusion about WMUK's involvement, though, >> certainly. In particular, the project has been repeatedly linked to >> Monmouthpedia in a way that suggests it is being organised by the same >> organisation. The "GibraltarpediA" mark doesn't help - in fact, it >> probably infringes on the "MonmouthpediA" mark. I know there were some >> issues with the use of the Wikipedia mark, which I believe were >> resolved with the WMF. I'm not aware of WMUK granting a license to use >> the "[Placename]pediA" mark, though. >> > > It goes back to your point about demarcation though. At no point did Roger > really identify this as *his project*. And the outro discussing WMUK leaves > one assuming (quite fairly, I think) it is a WMUK project. > > Tom >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
