Andy,
I get the point that you're making, but the review is of the projects run
through the office. I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful
background if nothing else, but quibbling over details of the past isn't going
to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these
projects.
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 18:38, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:07, Daria Cybulska <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have been focusing on a specific group of residencies, however, it would
> indeed be useful to mention the project in the background information, which
> I now have done.
Thank you. The page now reads:
"We have been involved with projects at the British Museum, and the
ARKive. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had
agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in
the report."
However, the residency at ARKive (not at "the ARKive") also reported
to, and had an agreement signed with, WikimediaUK.
--
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
