Hi Stevie, Thanks from me also for sharing this. Some points:
# The images you are using all appear to be copyright violations - not the best move! Why not attribute the images, or link to where they're available on Commons or elsewhere? For the image not covered by FoP, why not do something like the photos in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Censored_by_lack_of_FOP ? # I'm never sure about how orphan works should relate to free licenses. I'm sure that a number of my CC licensed photos could now be claimed by others to be orphan works as people have taken them from Wikipedia and reused them without attribution. I'd actually suggest removing this point completely unless you can explain how it might work in this sort of case or better nuance the text here. # "As can be seen in this article" won't work once you print the letter out! # What does it mean by 'on your group of MEPs'? Aren't you addressing them individually with this? Are you meaning UK MEPs? # If you want the MEPs to read through to the end, then I'd recommend condensing it down to two sides (and print it double-sided) so that they only have to flip the page over rather than flip through pages. Also, you only need the disclaimer on the first page rather than all three. # I still don't understand why 'start-ups' are mentioned here (as I asked at https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Talk:Free_Knowledge_Advocacy_Group_EU_statement_of_intent#Query but with no reply). # I agree with Fæ's points below. Thanks, Mike On 14 Mar 2014, at 17:54, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for letting people know that the UK chapter is sending this letter. > > It is a shame that so few Wikimedians in the UK have contributed to > the process, I think it is correct to say that even after counting > employees and trustees, the number is fewer than could be counted on > the fingers of one hand. > > I am assuming that the UK charity is open to receiving feedback, > though your email here, nor your equivalent notice on the UK wiki does > not invite comment. My apologies if my assumption is unfounded, please > ignore the following points if that is the case. > > Three points: > 1. > I note that the letter appears to state that the Free Knowledge > Advocacy Group EU is a UK charity, it might be an idea to get the > prose slightly more specific. > > 2. > The lead paragraph states "We are the UK based charity that supports > and promotes Wikipedia and its sister websites such as Wikimedia > Commons". This is quite different from the WMUK Mission as recently > approved by the board of trustees which does not mention Wikipedia or > Commons. I suggest that in an official letter of this type, that the > charity is described as accurately as possible, even in a plain > English summary. > > 3. > Were I the recipient I would be unclear if in emailing back, I were > responding to the WMUK charity or the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group > EU. The Royal "we" used throughout the letter is more than a little > confusing as it is signed by the CEO of possibly either (or both) of > WMUK and the Advocacy Group and correspondence email is a different > personal address. Is the letter intended to be from the UK charity or > the group of organizations in the Advocacy Group? > > Good luck with the letter. I'm sure that Jon Davies' practical > experience in the world of politics will prove useful if any MEP would > benefit from a follow-up, such as a discussion over lunch. > > Fae > -- > [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
