![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#1
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
I think I have found a lever at long last. The clue is in the long time it took for Wikimedia UK to get recognised as a charity. As Ashley van H says here http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140981 "it was quite a big story [i.e. charitable status] for the U.K - the charity commission struggled for a long period, and has had to refine their understanding of a public utility". What does he mean? Well it goes back to 2009, when the Charity Commission ruled that "The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education and has not been accepted as such in law... If the object [should] be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education," http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wi...ia_charity_not/ (register article)
So kudos to Jonathan Burchfield, partner at the law firm Stone King (specialists in Charity and Education Law, for reversing this decision: QUOTE In accepting Stone King’s application on behalf of Wikimedia UK, the Commission has been at pains to point out that the publication of information useful to the public and the promotion of open content are not inherently charitable activities. Any similar organisation seeking to become registered with the Charity Commission would need to demonstrate that its activities are exclusively for the public benefit and that the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. In Wikipedia’s case, for example, the continuous development and operation of editing policies and content security tools assure an increasingly high quality of content.†http://www.stoneking.co.uk/news/articles/-/page/1244 (Stone King press release) QUOTE “Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia so that it was not easily open to abuse.†http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1102747/ (Third Sector) This is really really really important. Wikimedia's lawyers had to argue that Wikimedia can operate under the heading "object of general public utility" as proposed by Samuel Romilly in the 19th century. There is a (somewhat long and difficult) legal judgment here http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html which illustrates the principle involved. According to the Romilly principle, benefit has to be conferred on the public by the proposed ends of the charity. Political purposes are not OK, nor the furtherance of a movement such as 'the Wikimedia movement'. Some identifiable section of the community must derive a real benefit from the purpose. More details from the Charity Commission website http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Librar...e/lawpb1208.pdf . It was under a generous interpretation of the Romilly principle that WMUK was recognised. This was clearly why there was a requirement that "the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. " I am now preparing an appeal to the UK Charities Commission, giving clear evidence of all the points in which WMUK demonstrably fails to meet the requirement for general public benefit, either because it lacks 'sufficient editorial controls', or for other reasons such as simply not benefiting the general public. Any suggestions welcome. I am particularly interested in recent cases where Wikipedia has failed to provide appropriate control or oversight. I can think of a few, such as the Philip Mould case http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html, where a gross slur remained on the site for a year and a half. What are appropriate controls for this sort of thing? Is anonymous editing an insufficient? I think so. Is making the WMUK board collectively responsible for the content of BLPs a minimum condition for good control? I think so too. Please let me have your suggestions A thing that already puzzles me is that if WMUK must 'control and monitor' the content, the following statement from its website seems inconsistent with that. QUOTE Please note that we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects.†http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Indeed, the whole principle on which Wikipedia was founded was that there should be no editorial oversight in the traditional sense, and that all content would be the result of a ruthless Darwinian fight for survival. That in itself makes it impossible for WMUK to 'control and monitor' content. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
![]() ![]() |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
Let me restate my view that this matter is an internal Wikipedian dispute between those Wikipedians who have prevailed in the formation of the UK chapter and Petey and other Wikipedians/Wikipedian Want To Bees/Unadjusted Wikipedian Used To Bees. That these Petey Bees gather at WR is no reason to favor them in this internal dispute.
These same Petey Bees seem to have discussion of the strength of an appeal against covered to the point of fanboy excess. While there is no reason favor the UK Chapter they do at least have the virtue of not being here to prattle on in their Wikipedian way. So let me point out for discussion purposes avenues of defense the UK Charter might take. Consider the following from the guidance provided by the CC (emphasis added). QUOTE D2. When doesn't the Commission get involved? The short answer We will not get involved in matters which are outside the scope of the Commission's responsibilities. Our powers to intervene are limited by:
In more detail In practical terms the limitations on our ability to intervene means we will not take forward complaints:
As a proportionate regulator we only take up issues where we believe that there is substance to a complaint. Therefore, if there is no evidence to support the complaint or allegation we may decide that intervention is not appropriate. We will not act on unsubstantiated allegations, rumour or opinion - to do this and, as a result, disrupt the charity's work would be unfair to that charity, its activities and its users and beneficiaries. This would seem toe to open the door to evidence that this is nothing but an internal dispute in which the Petey Bees are disgruntled banned editors. Wikipedians just love to obsessively pursue this kind of thing and the wiki documents it in such painful detail. Discussion of sock-puppeting, ban evasion, breaching experiments and all the attendant over-heated hyperbole might go a long way to undermine the preachy and self righteous "I could do it betterism" of the Bees. Of course a little of this sort of thing goes a long way and the general notion of lack of standing and interloping could be undermined by too much of this stuff. Still it is good to keep in mind that both sides get to get their licks in after they get tired of phoney civility and strained transparency. Maybe the Wikipedians could just "solve this amicably" and let the Petey Bees go back home. Maybe they could take Ottava with them too. |
dogbiscuit |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,972 Joined: From: The Midlands Member No.: 4,015 ![]() |
Let me restate my view that this matter is an internal Wikipedian dispute between those Wikipedians who have prevailed in the formation of the UK chapter and Petey and other Wikipedians/Wikipedian Want To Bees/Unadjusted Wikipedian Used To Bees. That these Petey Bees gather at WR is no reason to favor them in this internal dispute. These same Petey Bees seem to have discussion of the strength of an appeal against covered to the point of fanboy excess. While there is no reason favor the UK Chapter they do at least have the virtue of not being here to prattle on in their Wikipedian way. So let me point out for discussion purposes avenues of defense the UK Charter might take. Consider the following from the guidance provided by the CC (emphasis added). QUOTE D2. When doesn't the Commission get involved? The short answer We will not get involved in matters which are outside the scope of the Commission's responsibilities. Our powers to intervene are limited by:
In more detail In practical terms the limitations on our ability to intervene means we will not take forward complaints: [list] [*]where you disagree with decisions made by the trustees and those decisions have been properly made within the law and the provisions of the charity's governing document; [*]to resolve internal disagreements over a charity's policy or strategy because those involved are responsible for settling the issues themselves; [*]about incidents of poor service from a charity where there is no general risk to its services, its clients or its resources; [*]where the complaint arises from a charity dispute and there are properly appointed trustees whose responsibility it is to deal with the issues reported; [*]where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries; [*]where the issue is being dealt with by, or is the responsibility of, another statutory or supervisory body; [*]where there is a disagreement about the terms or delivery of a contract; [*]where legal proceedings are being taken by another party against a charity, including those for the collection of debts, except in a few very rare cases where the Attorney General has specifically asked us to do so. As a proportionate regulator we only take up issues where we believe that there is substance to a complaint. Therefore, if there is no evidence to support the complaint or allegation we may decide that intervention is not appropriate. We will not act on unsubstantiated allegations, rumour or opinion - to do this and, as a result, disrupt the charity's work would be unfair to that charity, its activities and its users and beneficiaries. This would seem toe to open the door to evidence that this is nothing but an internal dispute in which the Petey Bees are disgruntled banned editors. Wikipedians just love to obsessively pursue this kind of thing and the wiki documents it in such painful detail. Discussion of sock-puppeting, ban evasion, breaching experiments and all the attendant over-heated hyperbole might go a long way to undermine the preachy and self righteous "I could do it betterism" of the Bees. Of course a little of this sort of thing goes a long way and the general notion of lack of standing and interloping could be undermined by too much of this stuff. Still it is good to keep in mind that both sides get to get their licks in after they get tired of phoney civility and strained transparency. Maybe the Wikipedians could just "solve this amicably" and let the Petey Bees go back home. Maybe they could take Ottava with them too. While that is one interpretation, you should know full well that the issue of Wikipedia that troubles many Reviewers is not the niceties (or nasticies) of internal Wikipedian politics, but the impact that Wikipedia has on the wider world. For example, I am sure that Jon Awbrey would not characterise the issue of Wikipedia being some internal dispute and I would suggest that my interest in this is not really that Wikipedia is as mad as a box of frogs, but that as a Resource for the Public Good, the readership are excluded from having any influence on the product, and that the policy decisions are often against the public interest on a number of significant issues. The evidence that there cannot be a rational discussion of issues such as child protection, pornography and so on with any frame of reference that relates to the public perception of these issues. While in WikiWorld it may be appropriate to work by their unique viewpoints, when the organisation extracts public money for public good, then that public have a right to have their requirements considered. So if the issue was simply one of Peter extending a policy dispute into the wider world, then the interpretation you highlight might be appropriate. However, there are issues far wider than petty arguments over interpretation of policy. Even then, is the public interest best served by an encyclopedia whose bureaucracy holds that truth is somehow irrelevant to the producing a work of reference? Ignoring the encyclopedia, there are still basic questions to ask of the Wikimedia UK organisation and the self-dealing of appointments and the lack of a properly constituted board of trustees which should, to comply with best practice, be seeking trustees from the wider community to ensure that it is managed appropriately rather than by a group of people with narrow interests. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |