" On 7 April 2014 11:00, Jon Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> people who had been/are employed as WiR > plus one other person who had been > heavily involved in the employment and a trustee. Jon, In recent weeks, we've had a consultation which was launched by staff member claiming that "as a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012". When it was pointed out that this was incorrect, since the chapter's first WiR was in 2011, it was explained by another staff member that: "there were residencies that are not taken into considerations here. We wanted to consider the residencies that had institutions in significant cooperation with the chapter" This despite the fact that the 2011 ARKive residency did indeed involve an institution in significant cooperation with the chapter. Then I found that the ARKive residency had been omitted from the list of past residencies on the WMUK wiki: https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Cultural_partnerships&diff=prev&oldid=54268 Now we have the event this weekend, where the ARKive residency and my feedback on that project (not to mention my other residencies) were apparently deemed irrelevant. On their own, any one of these might be considered an unfortunate oversight, but viewing the three together, especially after the first had been highlighted, one might wonder whether they reflect more than coincidence. > I hope that explains it and that we will encourage Andy > and everyone to continue to participate in this review. I gave up on the questionnaire for reasons that Mike P. and Harry have already highlighted. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
