Letter to UK Charity Commission, Is this a big enough stick? I hope so. Options

[Peter Damian]

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:

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)

“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.

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:

[EricBarbour]

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.

This has some possibilities. It would be easy to come up with material, right now.
You could send them samples of the following:

--evidence of WP defamation (Daniel Brandt, conservatives, LaRouche, Taner Akcam, etc)

--that Turnitin report on plagiarism

--some of my charts about WP's content vs. Britannica

--samples of a few of the major editwars

You might also point out the "benefit to the public" seems to consist mostly in its use by UK citizens
for "amusement", meaning obsessive behaviour/addiction/abuse of others, with administrator
examples (Gerard, Sidaway, FT2, Ironholds, Morwen etc).
Plus its popular use by schoolchildren as a place to steal content for school papers.
Plus its massive football and Doctor Who content. Plus pedophilia and bestiality content.
Plus that list of Commons categories I gave you.

[gomi]

[Modnote: I removed (to the Tar Pit) some posts that were off-topic and/or do not model a positive form of interaction here. -- gomi]

[EricBarbour]

For some extra "oomph", you could print Jimbo Found Out and Jimbo Fired Up, and send the Charities Commission a copy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Wikipedia has no controls, because it does not know who its "editors" are.

You'd think the Johann Hari thing has got to be near to top candidate for recent WP defamations that have potential to strike a chord in the UK - the success over 4-plus years of his pseudonymous smear/fluff campaigns discredit the quality of the site's "safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided". Cristina Odone is eloquent on her treatment at the hands of wikipedia:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristina...-will-come-out/

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34320

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...ipedia-admitted

[Daniel Brandt]

--evidence of WP defamation (Daniel Brandt, conservatives, LaRouche, Taner Akcam, etc)

I suspect that this page that chronicles my problems with Wikipedia editors would be relevant here. Many hours of research were needed to discover the identities of some of the editors listed on that page. Moreover, my complaint letters and emails to Brad Patrick, and later to Mike Godwin, former legal counsels for the U.S. nonprofit foundation, were all ignored.

[SB_Johnny]

--evidence of WP defamation (Daniel Brandt, conservatives, LaRouche, Taner Akcam, etc)

I suspect that this page that chronicles my problems with Wikipedia editors would be relevant here. Many hours of research were needed to discover the identities of some of the editors listed on that page. Moreover, my complaint letters and emails to Brad Patrick, and later to Mike Godwin, former legal counsels for the U.S. nonprofit foundation, were all ignored.

No surprise there. Apparently they believe that the the piggy bank is at risk if they dare to remove content, even if the content happens to be illegal.

[Peter Damian]

David r from meth productions
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...eth+productions

Sock of journalist Johann Hari. Blocked by Courcelles

(a) How long had it been going on

(b) More importantly, how was it uncovered. I want to know whether the new 'monitor and control' culture that WMUK installed had been effective in spotting this breach of policy. Or was it the Evening Standard or some other watchdog, or someone complaining that set if off?

Ed

--evidence of WP defamation (Daniel Brandt, conservatives, LaRouche, Taner Akcam, etc)

I suspect that this page that chronicles my problems with Wikipedia editors would be relevant here. Many hours of research were needed to discover the identities of some of the editors listed on that page. Moreover, my complaint letters and emails to Brad Patrick, and later to Mike Godwin, former legal counsels for the U.S. nonprofit foundation, were all ignored.

This is highly relevant, can you send me copies of correspondence if possible.

However, more recent information is better. It may be that the new control and monitoring culture at the WMUK has been more effective recently.

Those IRC 'dickhead' channels are also good. But again, has IRC cleaned up its act? It may be that that new control culture has been effective here. We need evidence for or against.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

I think the charity commission might be interested in the one below anyway, however old.

Hive chatter about Brandt
Esteemed encyclopedia editors
discuss the subject of an article

from #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode


2006-04-26: "evil" 2006-04-26: "one crazy fucker" 2006-04-29: "age bigot"
2006-04-30: "dickhead" 2006-05-02: "paranoid fruitcake" 2006-05-12: "full of crap"
2006-05-14: "blackmailer" 2006-05-14: "attention whoring" 2006-05-14: "belongs in an asylum"
2006-05-27: "freaking nut" 2006-05-27: "idiot" 2006-05-27: "just wants attention"
2006-05-27: "very successful troll" 2006-05-27: "likes to persecute" 2006-05-28: "insane maniac"
2006-05-29: "fucktard" 2006-05-29: "cuntfuck" 2006-05-29: "conspiracy theorist"
2006-05-29: "bastard" 2006-05-29: "internet crazy" 2006-05-30: "zealot"
2006-05-30: "extorted a minor" 2006-05-31: "not fully sane" 2006-05-31: "an attention seeker"
2006-05-31: "thinks like a 3-year-old" 2006-05-31: "malicious and stupid" 2006-05-31: "real animal"
2006-06-10: "fucking douchebag" 2006-06-10: "dickhead" 2006-06-10: "troll"
2006-06-10: "Saddam in disguise" 2006-06-12: "doody-head" 2006-06-13: "mental problems"
2006-06-13: "internet nuisance" 2006-06-18: "fatass" 2006-06-19: "bit of a loon"
2006-06-20: "totally batshit insane" 2006-06-23: "delusional idiot" 2006-06-27: "asshole"
2006-07-02: "a big dick" 2006-07-04: "a pile of monkey nuts" 2006-07-06: "irritatingly paranoid"
2006-07-06: "such a bastard" 2006-07-07: "cocksucker" 2006-07-08: "Brandt is a dick"
2006-07-18: "a spineless coward" 2006-07-18: "sucks really big balls" 2006-07-18: "a big assbag"

I see Coren is reading.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

Perhaps the chair of the Charity Commission should read her own BLP.......

Controversies

Suzi Leather’s public appointments, none of which were elected posts, have led some right-wing commentators to question the motives of those who appoint her. The Adam Smith Institute accused her of pursuing a "political agenda" on behalf of politicians who lacked the "moral courage" to tackle the issue themselves.[4]

During her tenure at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Leather was criticised for stating that a child's absolute need for a father figure was "nonsense".[5] Jack O'Sullivan, of the campaign group Fathers Direct which campaigns for the rights of fathers, said that "while discrimination against single and lesbian women was wrong, the benefits of a father figure were proven by scientific studies".[5]

The Charities Act (2006)[6] added to the traditional list of "charitable purposes" for which charities can be established (the prevention or relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and so forth) a requirement that their activities should be carried on "for the public benefit"; and it required the Charities Commission to determine how it would be established that the public benefit was being served. In pursuance of this requirement, in 2009 Dame Suzi instigated an investigation into private schools in order to determine whether non-profit education providers should continue to be accorded charitable status automatically. She has stated that she cannot "see why charitable status was always merited". Specifically, it was decided that, while providing education is a charitable purpose, doing so only in exchange for an economic fee does not meet the requirement that the purpose is carried on for public rather than private benefit. A fee-paying school could nonetheless deserve charitable status, for example if it offered bursaries, or provided teaching or coaching children from surrounding schools, or otherwise contributed. As of July 2009, five private schools in the North West of England had been investigated and it was concluded that two of the five gave insufficient benefit to the public and had therefore failed the proposed test. These school would lose their charitable status in a year’s time "unless they gave out more bursaries".[7] It has been claimed that the Commission may have exceeded its powers under the 2006 Charities Act.[8]
[edit] Public Sector Salary

In 2010 a list released by the Cabinet Office in a drive for greater transparency in public life revealed the salaries of 156 "quango" bosses,[9][10] including Dame Leather's remuneration package of £104,999 a year for a 3 day week as head of the Charity Commission.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Perhaps the chair of the Charity Commission should read her own BLP.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=302005932

The revision that added the controversy section to the article is interesting. It even includes a faux "CENSORED BY COURT ORDER" message. That revision and its faux message apparently influenced the judgment of those who read the Wikipedia article at that time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...comment-4936126

This is an example of how Wikipedia editors can influence gullible readers.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[EricBarbour]

In fact, people have been inserting defamatory remarks in her BLP for years.

Usually via IP address, though it does appear that Galatian (T-C-L-K-R-D) doesn't like her very much.

And looky who expanded the article for the first time.

Gosh, Batman, I wonder who this is.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[dogbiscuit]

Some good specific examples, though I'd guess to respond to attacks against the Chair or body itself would give the impression of self-interest and give the CC a problem.

What are some good solid generic problems that a public body could not ignore?

The dysfunctional discussion on image filters might actually be a solid example - the way Wikimedia UK has no ability to consider or impose control for the public good, and WMF has stepped back from imposing any solution. Need to hunt out some key words there. It is a good example, because it is current.

Clearly, another good example is the subversion of National Gallery assets into the public domain. I am not clear how best to arrange that argument, and I suspect that there is an implication of breaking some UK law, Misuse of Computers Act (if someone used the National Gallery system to extract the pictures against the express lack of consent of the National Gallery) as well as a moral position. What is the link between the extractor and Wikimedia UK?

The wider problem being that the Wikipedian community is vociferous in imposing its own code of conduct not only within the organisation but on matters that impinge on the real world. I suspect there are some good examples that would support this, the casual promotion of pornography for example. As a generator of conflict and its inability for resolve disputes, it has a negative impact on the charitable aims.

Finally, there is a problem that Wikimedia UK trustees have a duty to Wikimedia UK and should only act in the interests of Wikimedia UK, not the wider Wikipedia or WMF. There is probably little evidence of a conflict of interest, but something worth monitoring.

[Cla68]

If I remember right, there was an article on a British lower-division professional rugby or football team which had been heavily vandalized and the vandalism had stood for something like a year. The text had said something like, among other things, "The Farthingham Trotters are the largets openly homosexual team in British professional football" or something like that.

[timbo]

Narcs suck.

t

[Kelly Martin]

It's interesting how WMUK abjectedly lied in its application, by claiming that it had any control or influence over editorial policy or practice, when in fact it has none at all. The main purpose of WM chapters is to arrange parties. That's it.

[SB_Johnny]

It's interesting how WMUK abjectedly lied in its application, by claiming that it had any control or influence over editorial policy or practice, when in fact it has none at all. The main purpose of WM chapters is to arrange parties. That's it.

And to have free beer at the parties. Free beer as in free beer, one might imagine.

Has Jimbo been seen hanging out with any of the CEOs of London's local breweries? There has to be a tie-in to the castle/yacht fund somewhere.

[dogbiscuit]

It's interesting how WMUK abjectedly lied in its application, by claiming that it had any control or influence over editorial policy or practice, when in fact it has none at all. The main purpose of WM chapters is to arrange parties. That's it.

and again, the lawyers make specific reference to Wikimedia's high quality images, some of which were laundered through the US to circumvent UK copyright laws, but presumably would not be public domain in the UK.

The exact wording of the application would be helpful, because the Fraud Act of 2002 makes it unlawful to make any sort of misleading statement with the intent of gain. It is the statement that is the critical act, not the gain, which does not have to be crystallised.

[Kelly Martin]

It does occur to me that Jimmy's relocation to London makes WMUK far more relevant than it used to be: they're now responsible for organizing the Godking's parties, rather than just their own. But feting on the overblown ego of your cult's private god is not a "charitable" purpose even in the US, and certainly not in the UK.

[RMHED]

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

[Peter Damian]

The exact wording of the application would be helpful, because the Fraud Act of 2002 makes it unlawful to make any sort of misleading statement with the intent of gain. It is the statement that is the critical act, not the gain, which does not have to be crystallised.

I had a correspondence with the lawyers, Stone King (who strangely have no article about themselves in Wikipedia, though some lawyers do), who were very helpful. This is all going to be arranged.

I have heard nothing directly from WMUK however. This may change when I pay a visit to their offices next week.

Narcs suck.

t

There were some great articles linked to on your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite about fires in New York garment district where the bosses kept the doors locked and many workers died as a result.

How terrible if someone had informed the authorities about these terrible working practices and those bosses were punished. How bad for the bosses. Narcs suck, indeed.

[carbuncle]

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

For ease of reference, here is the list of trustees from that link:
MR ANDREW TURVEY
MR MICHAEL PEEL
MR STEVE VIRGIN
MR ROGER BAMKIN
DR MARTIN LEWIS POULTER
MR ASHLEY VAN HAEFTEN
MR CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH KEATING

I regret looking at the list because one of those names is particularly familiar to me from past interactions. I guess I haven't been paying attention, or I would have noticed this earlier. I'll open up that can of worms when I get the time.

[Detective]

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

I see that one of the trustees is a Mr. Steve Virgin. Maybe he's taken on the job hoping to benefit from Jimbo's advice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) After all, whatever we think of Jimbo, we will all agree that there's one thing he's very good at. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[RMHED]

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

For ease of reference, here is the list of trustees from that link:
MR ANDREW TURVEY
MR MICHAEL PEEL
MR STEVE VIRGIN
MR ROGER BAMKIN
DR MARTIN LEWIS POULTER
MR ASHLEY VAN HAEFTEN
MR CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH KEATING

I regret looking at the list because one of those names is particularly familiar to me from past interactions. I guess I haven't been paying attention, or I would have noticed this earlier. I'll open up that can of worms when I get the time.

So the Trustees are just the current members of the Wikimedia UK board. A bunch of geeky white men with too much time on their hands and an inflated sense of their own importance.

[dogbiscuit]

The fact that the charity trustees are employing people known to them rather than most suitably qualified for the role (Chase Me being the prime example) is a problem under Charity Law. Trustees are under a legal obligation to act considering the best interests of the charity and if it could be shown that they were employing friends that were not qualified in a world where there must be plenty of experienced people then they are heading for trouble.

Trustees must... act with integrity, and avoid any personal conflicts of interest or misuse of charity funds or assets.

[RMHED]

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

I see that one of the trustees is a Mr. Steve Virgin. Maybe he's taken on the job hoping to benefit from Jimbo's advice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) After all, whatever we think of Jimbo, we will all agree that there's one thing he's very good at. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(IMG:http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1864/38993138594619509977138.jpg)
Steve Virgin, PR consultant.

[dogbiscuit]

"Verifiability not truth" could be another stick to beat them with.

There has been a battle over many years and the fact that one individual has owned that controversial statement and held it in place against all reasonable attempts to correct the difficulties of the deliberate misinterpretation of this ought to be an element of the argument that Wikimedia UK have any semblance of editorial control for the Greater Good.

It is probably the finest example of ownership on Wikipedia, not only for the length of time, but for the overarching effect of the ownership.

[Cla68]

That would be just outstanding if WR could get their charity status pulled.

[Peter Damian]

I have discussed with Mike Peel and it turns out that the article in Third Sector http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/go/governance...charity-status/ was a misquote. The Stone King press release http://www.stoneking.co.uk/news/articles/-/page/1244 is more carefully worded, saying that

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.

I.e. WMUK has to demonstrate that there are sufficient editorial controls on Wikipedia, does not have to ensure this. A fine line.

This changes nothing, however. I did not think an law firm would have made such an elementary mistake. The real question is, how WMUK can demonstrate that there are sufficient editorial controls. This is what I am focusing on.

[Daniel Brandt]

If you have an occasion to mention John Seigenthaler, here is a little bit of multimedia that should impress anyone who has an objective interest in the points you are making. Wikipedia was awful in 2005 when the Seigenthaler defamation occurred, Jimbo was still making excuses for the Seigenthaler defamation in 2007, and it's still awful today. Get the connection?

This is a two-minute mp3 audio clip of Jimbo, in an interview on Australian television, explaining why it was John Seigenthaler's own fault. The interviewer is Ellen Fanning. She has worked for years at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The show title was "Wikipedia - Right or Wrong" and it aired on Sunday, April 1, 2007 as a feature story. The name of the program was called SUNDAY. The original link to the full video was at ninemsn.com.au but by now it's a dead link.

I sent this mp3 clip link to John Seigenthaler and he listened to it. On April 22, 2007 he responded in an email to me:

Wales is unbelievable!

He says he thinks it "amusing" that I wrote an article in USA Today complaining about Wikipedia's unreliability. He needs a new definition for the word "amusing."

He also needs a new one for the word "obscure."

That "obscure" biography was found by two friends of mine — one, Vic Johnson, in Nashville and the other, Erin MacAnnally, in Honolulu — before I saw it. And it appeared on perhaps two dozen "obscure" mirror sights around the world, most of which I still have not identified.

Jimbo is duplicitous. He says that his expert Wikipedian editors missed the article identifying me as suspected assassin and defector, because it was located in that "obscure" corner of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no corners.

In fact, the original draft by Brian Chase misspelled the word "early" (it was ealry) and it was caught almost immediately by one of Wales' "expert" editors.

His "expert" didn't have the intelligence or sense to correct the error identifying me as a suspected assassin and defector. Had my friends not found it, odds are that it still would have missed Jimmy's "experts."

In fact, a third friend of mine, Eric Newton, an executive of the Knight Foundation in Miami, saw the original before I called Wales and diverted it to the history page. It was from there that Jimmy archived it when I phoned him.

The fact that he moved it from the history pages to his archives leaves no doubt in my mind that he recognizes that what appears on the history page represents defamation.

It all demonstrates again that Wikipedia is beset by flaw and fraud.

[Peter Damian]

If you have an occasion to mention John Seigenthaler

I understand your point about Jimbo's dismissal of the incident and blame for Seigenthaler, and there will be a place for this. However, wiki-apologists like Andrew Lih claim that Wikipedia has been tidied up since then.

I still need concrete proof that Wikipedia is just as vulnerable to BLP abuse as it was then. (Or rather, I have some, but I need more, particular juicy examples).

I have put your email on file - I assume you are happy with my quoting it?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

There is an article in the press about once a month describing how some public figure or another has had his or her biography "defaced" on Wikipedia. A perusal of this site's Media forums should reveal dozens of such.

[Peter Damian]

Here is a transcription of the Fanning interview.

Fanning: Let's look at a more serious example. There's a man called John Seigenthaler snr. Now for 132 days Wikipedia's entry on him stated, quote, "For a brief time he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations: both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven" unquote. Now Seigenthaler in fact worked for Robert Kennedy, he was a pallbearer at his funeral. That's an extraordinary inaccuracy isn't it.

Wales: oh yes it is and basically what happened there [was] someone came and created the article, ah, it slipped by the first line of defence which is the people who were checking new articles and recent changes. Ah, we're not sure exactly how it slipped through that defence but it did, ah, then it wasn't linked to from anywhere else on the site, it was a very obscure article off by itself in the corner. So, since it didn't get categorised as being Kennedy administration related, the kind of people who specialise in that area didn't see it and never got around to finding it and correcting it.

Fanning: You spoke earlier about newspapers. It's inconceivable that any newspaper would ever publish something like that, isn't it?

Wales: Ah ... yeah it probably is inconceivable that something like that would be published by a newspaper but, ah, you know given how obscure it was and that almost no one would have seen it, ah, due to the way that the error happened, you know we don't consider it really, ah, ah, you know sort of an indictment of the whole process.

Fanning: Mr Seigenthaler points out though that it's like a virus. What appears on Wikipedia spreads through the internet and it becomes very difficult to close that down. I mean, he was deeply wounded by it. So, in that sense, it was an indictment of the process.

Wales: Well, you know the interesting thing .. right ... so .. like.. the thing that in this case I always thought was sort of amusing about this was that basically nobody had heard of this and there was really no public talk of it. It was a very obscure article and if he was concerned about it being spread all over the internet then maybe he shouldn't have written an editorial in USA today because that's the only way the general public ever even saw it or heard about it. So, I always thought that it was, ah, a little bit of an odd critique to say "Gee, now it's all over the world and everybody knows about it. Well, yeah, you published it in USA today and so of course "

[thekohser]

The "obscure" article about John Seigenthaler, by my estimation, was probably getting about 15 to 20 page views per day, for the 132 days it was sabotaged. So, at least 2,000 different people likely saw the defamation. Granted, while that's not a high-traffic article by Wikipedia standards, it still speaks to the fact that 2,000 people looking at something on a site with millions of pages is not exactly "obscure", either.

[Peter Damian]

Thankfully, it appears that Wikipedia does have high standards.

The Charity Commission has approved WMUK's application, so they clearly feel that WMUK has sufficiently demonstrated that high standards are ensured. That involved explaining, and providing evidence for, what processes exist to ensure high standards (most of which are processes implemented by and performed by the volunteer community, with a few extra processes handled by the WMF over certain legal matters). I am unclear on why you feel a more formal discussion is required. WMUK's charity status is a matter between WMUK and the Charity Commission. You have no formal involvement in it. In the interests of transparency, I and the WMUK board are happy to answer your questions (as I believe we have now done here), but a formal discussion would suggest that WMUK has some formal duty to explain these things to you, which it does not. --Tango 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Act..._being_spent.3F

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

Thankfully, it appears that Wikipedia does have high standards.

The Charity Commission has approved WMUK's application, so they clearly feel that WMUK has sufficiently demonstrated that high standards are ensured. That involved explaining, and providing evidence for, what processes exist to ensure high standards (most of which are processes implemented by and performed by the volunteer community, with a few extra processes handled by the WMF over certain legal matters). I am unclear on why you feel a more formal discussion is required. WMUK's charity status is a matter between WMUK and the Charity Commission. You have no formal involvement in it. In the interests of transparency, I and the WMUK board are happy to answer your questions (as I believe we have now done here), but a formal discussion would suggest that WMUK has some formal duty to explain these things to you, which it does not. --Tango 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Act..._being_spent.3F

Hmm. With my experience of the Charity Commission, I doubt they'd see it as what is being suggested to be a private matter. If there is a suggestiion that the CC has been misled then it is clearly not only a matter of public interest but a matter of law.

...and as ever, information is only free when it suits the holders of the information.

[lilburne]

Perhaps they explained all about 'pending changes' and how that fitted into the process.

[EricBarbour]

Perhaps they explained all about 'pending changes' and how that fitted into the process.

(IMG:http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c334/Zako_Zako/1156635592215.jpg)

[timbo]

Narcs suck.

t

There were some great articles linked to on your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carrite about fires in New York garment district where the bosses kept the doors locked and many workers died as a result.

How terrible if someone had informed the authorities about these terrible working practices and those bosses were punished. How bad for the bosses. Narcs suck, indeed.

WHACK WHACK WHACK!!!

Beat that straw man!

How about this: "The Nazis murdered millions of Jews, Roma, Communists, and other enemies of the regime. How terrible if somebody hadn't informed the world community of their evil intentions years in advance. Untold millions would have been saved. Narcs suck, indeed."

Might as well go all the way with that false analogy, no sense pussing out with a handful of dead garment workers.

t

This post has been edited by timbo:

[lilburne]

Perhaps they explained all about 'pending changes' and how that fitted into the process.

(IMG:http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c334/Zako_Zako/1156635592215.jpg)

Wouldn't be the first time they've used that one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10312095

The lead time from making an application for charitable status to getting registered is at least a year. If the application was in any way controversial it will have taken longer, with much toing and froing of clarifications etc. There are good odds that they used "pending changes" when the subject of accuracy, or reliability was brought up.

[Peter Damian]

How about this: "The Nazis murdered millions of Jews, Roma, Communists, and other enemies of the regime. How terrible if somebody hadn't informed the world community of their evil intentions years in advance. Untold millions would have been saved. Narcs suck, indeed."

That's a good analogy too. General principle: if something bad is going on, tell the world about it, and try not to be put off by bullies. It can be slightly bad, bad, very bad, very very bad. Same principle. Or are there bad things to which the principle doesn't apply? But in that case you need to qualify the principle. Perhaps it applies to all bad things except Wikipedia? OK. But then not really a principle, is it?

[dogbiscuit]

The issues we consider to be serious or significant and unacceptable for any charity, its trustees, employees or agents to be engaged in are set out in the list below. The issues are not listed in any order of priority:

* significant financial loss to the charity;
* serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries;
* threats to national security, particularly terrorism;
* criminality within or involving a charity;
* sham charities set up for an illegal or improper purpose;
* charities deliberately being used for significant private advantage;
* where a charity's independence is seriously called into question;
* serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally;
* serious non-compliance in a charity which, left unchecked, could damage public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission as an effective regulator.

[Peter Damian]

The issues we consider to be serious or significant and unacceptable for any charity, its trustees, employees or agents to be engaged in are set out in the list below. The issues are not listed in any order of priority:

* significant financial loss to the charity;
* serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries;
* threats to national security, particularly terrorism;
* criminality within or involving a charity;
* sham charities set up for an illegal or improper purpose;
* charities deliberately being used for significant private advantage;
* where a charity's independence is seriously called into question;
* serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally;
* serious non-compliance in a charity which, left unchecked, could damage public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission as an effective regulator.

However, WMUK says the Charity Commission has considered all of this

Thank you for sharing this with us. I believe your points are all either irrelevant to WMUK's charity status or have already been considered by the Charity Commission and deemed not to be a block to that charity status. I don't think there is any point in us trying to argue against the points you make, since they are generally factually accurate (albeit with a lot of spin on them) and the only thing we disagree on is the interpretation of them and their relevance to charity status under UK law. Therefore, I suggest you simply submit your thoughts to the Charity Commission and let them decide if they have merit. Please note, I do not represent WMUK and that is simply a personal opinion. The WMUK board may wish to engage in further discussion with you - that is their choice. --Tango 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[timbo]

How about this: "The Nazis murdered millions of Jews, Roma, Communists, and other enemies of the regime. How terrible if somebody hadn't informed the world community of their evil intentions years in advance. Untold millions would have been saved. Narcs suck, indeed."

That's a good analogy too. General principle: if something bad is going on, tell the world about it, and try not to be put off by bullies. It can be slightly bad, bad, very bad, very very bad. Same principle. Or are there bad things to which the principle doesn't apply? But in that case you need to qualify the principle. Perhaps it applies to all bad things except Wikipedia? OK. But then not really a principle, is it?

Actually, it's a ludicrous and insane analogy, but maybe it's difficult to distinguish between genocide or the loss of life on the one hand, from the warts-and-all bureaucratic educational project called Wikipedia on the other...

Obsession does not become you, you're too smart for that.

t

[Peter Damian]

Actually, it's a ludicrous and insane analogy, but maybe it's difficult to distinguish between genocide or the loss of life on the one hand, from the warts-and-all bureaucratic educational project called Wikipedia on the other...

But it was you who first drew the analogy, by calling me a 'narc'. And what is this 'educational project' you are talking about?

[Peter Damian]

I had some comments from HJ Mitchell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:At_the_Foundation.JPG ) on my draft summary for the charity commission http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Act...rity_Commission .

Any thoughts on the points he raises? I don't know much about the OTRS system, except for reports that it is a joke.

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Eppur si muove]

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

I don't know of any going to court but some do definitely involve communications from lawyers. See e.g. Tahir Abbas (T-H-L-K-D) where there has been a lot of discussion involving a critical article by the Times Higher Education Supplement which the publishers have withdrawn from the website and not retracted.

[Kelly Martin]

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

I don't know of any going to court but some do definitely involve communications from lawyers. See e.g. Tahir Abbas (T-H-L-K-D) where there has been a lot of discussion involving a critical article by the Times Higher Education Supplement which the publishers have withdrawn from the website and not retracted.

In my days of using oversight, I definitely helped resolve defamation claims that were brought to the attention of counsel, by various ways. None of the matters I was involved in led to a suit being filed against the WMF, but as the WMF is almost entirely immune to prosecution in the US anyway (because of Section 230) most attorneys won't bother with the suit as the odds of a dismissal are so high that an attorney that files such a suit and does not provide a meaningful argument for why Section 230 does not apply risks sanctions. It is my understanding that several people have tried to sue "Wikipedia", in various actions, but as Wikipedia is not an entity that can sue or be sued such action will be dismissed on those grounds.

It should be noted that the WMF has not been so lucky outside the US; the German Wikipedia has had its domain name (wikipedia.de) temporarily seized on several occasions. Wikimedia is careful to avoid having property outside the United States that could be used as the basis for jurisdiction other than in the US, as Section 230 immunity only exists in the US.

There have been defamation prosecutions based on posting content to Wikipedia, against individually-identified editors; I believe some of those have resulted in judgments adverse to the defendants, including injunctive relief. There's also at least one case that I'm aware of where Wikimedia was made aware of an individual who was editing Wikipedia in contravention of a permanent injunction, resulting in Wikimedia being formally served with an order to prevent that individual from continuing to edit Wikipedia. The WMF responded that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the WMF to do so, but agreed to voluntarily comply anyway. And of course Wikimedia is fairly routinely served with third party discovery motions seeking the identity of individual editors, to which WMF generally responds quickly and quietly. (Good luck getting them to tell you how many such motions they get, or how cooperative they are with respect to them.)

[lilburne]

Of concern would be people from WMFUK interacting with children online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/p...tatutory-checks

[SB_Johnny]

you're too smart for that.

As opposed to you... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[thekohser]

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

In most cases, probably because the victim becomes so frustrated with the process and with Section 230 that they just give up in despair. Then, at least some portion of them end up calling me on the phone or sending me an e-mail.

In the past two years, I've had no fewer than ten different clients whose frustration with Wikipedia's BLP dispute process could be described as ranging from "palpable" to "extreme". In this nitwit's head, that's still a "resolved" case. The victim went away, so it's "resolved".

[carbuncle]

I wasn't trying to stay out of this, but the claim of "no BLP lawsuits" is one that can be easily shown to be false. They turn up all the time in the news feed here. Here's the one from the first page of my Google search: Grebner files libel suit over Wikipedia edits. Here's another (this one quite recent): Billionaire Louis Bacon Wins Wikipedia Defamation Suit, Will Go After Names.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Cla68]

Another example you might could use to show that the Wikimedia UK's charity status application was fraudulent is to highlight the abuse inflicted last year on the Christopher Monckton article, as discussed in this thread. In this case an editor was trying to add negative information to the article sourced to a university professor's slide show. The editor in question, now known as Prioryman, at that time was editing under ChrisO, an abbreviation of his real name. ChrisO's sneaky conversion to Prioryman and the way he was assisted by one of the arbs is detailed, I believe, in one of the "Arbcom-L leaks" threads, although it didn't come up when I searched for it. The edits in question show as being done by "Vanished User 03", which is ChrisO.

Make sure you explain that Chris was violating not one, but two Wikipedia policies, Reliable Sourcing and BLP, by using a self-published source (actually, one is a guideline but I doubt the UK government will understand or care about the difference). Point out that WP's admin corps did not spring into action to stop what ChrisO was doing. I think this example would be especially useful since you can put a real name to the editor who was doing it, who lives in the UK, and the person he was defaming is a peer in the British government.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Eppur si muove]

Another example you might could use to show that the Wikimedia UK's charity status application was fraudulent is to highlight the abuse inflicted last year on the Christopher Monckton article, as discussed in this thread. In this case an editor was trying to add negative information to the article sourced to a university professor's slide show. The editor in question, now known as Prioryman, at that time was editing under ChrisO, an abbreviation of his real name. ChrisO's sneaky conversion to Prioryman and the way he was assisted by one of the arbs is detailed, I believe, in one of the "Arbcom-L leaks" threads, although it didn't come up when I searched for it. The edits in question show as being done by "Vanished User 03", which is ChrisO.

Make sure you explain that Chris was violating not one, but two Wikipedia policies, Reliable Sourcing and BLP, by using a self-published source (actually, one is a guideline but I doubt the UK government will understand or care about the difference). Point out that WP's admin corps did not spring into action to stop what ChrisO was doing. I think this example would be especially useful since you can put a real name to the editor who was doing it, who lives in the UK, and the person he was defaming is a peer in the British government.

Actually, if his wikibio is only slightly misleading, he is a peer in a minor opposition party. But wikipedians seems to regularly misunderstandard what "the government" means in the UK. See e.g. C.P. Snow (T-H-L-K-D) where he had only one government position (parliamentary secretary to the minister of technology which is not really important in the scale of things) and several civil service ones. The terminology seems to be borrowed from the Columbia Encyclopedia which opens "(Charles Percy Snow, Baron Snow of Leicester), 1905–80, English author and physicist. Snow had an active, varied career, including several important positions in the British government." The Wikipedia article reeks of close paraphrase opening "Charles Percy Snow, Baron Snow of the City of Leicester CBE (15 October 1905 – 1 July 1980) was an English physicist and novelist who also served in several important positions with the UK government". Not very good in a an article on one of the major 20th century British novelists.

[Peter Damian]

Another example you might could use to show that the Wikimedia UK's charity status application was fraudulent is to highlight the abuse inflicted last year on the Christopher Monckton article, as discussed in this thread. In this case an editor was trying to add negative information to the article sourced to a university professor's slide show. The editor in question, now known as Prioryman, at that time was editing under ChrisO, an abbreviation of his real name. ChrisO's sneaky conversion to Prioryman and the way he was assisted by one of the arbs is detailed, I believe, in one of the "Arbcom-L leaks" threads, although it didn't come up when I searched for it. The edits in question show as being done by "Vanished User 03", which is ChrisO.

Make sure you explain that Chris was violating not one, but two Wikipedia policies, Reliable Sourcing and BLP, by using a self-published source (actually, one is a guideline but I doubt the UK government will understand or care about the difference). Point out that WP's admin corps did not spring into action to stop what ChrisO was doing. I think this example would be especially useful since you can put a real name to the editor who was doing it, who lives in the UK, and the person he was defaming is a peer in the British government.

I can't make any sense of the edit trail. It sounds good, but some questions:

1. In what sense was the information added 'negative'? Was it unsourced? Did it fail the balance test?
2. Which sources were not reliable?
3. Why actually didn't admins spring into action?
4. How was ChrisO aided in his return?

Thanks

[SB_Johnny]

Another example you might could use to show that the Wikimedia UK's charity status application was fraudulent is to highlight the abuse inflicted last year on the Christopher Monckton article, as discussed in this thread. In this case an editor was trying to add negative information to the article sourced to a university professor's slide show. The editor in question, now known as Prioryman, at that time was editing under ChrisO, an abbreviation of his real name. ChrisO's sneaky conversion to Prioryman and the way he was assisted by one of the arbs is detailed, I believe, in one of the "Arbcom-L leaks" threads, although it didn't come up when I searched for it. The edits in question show as being done by "Vanished User 03", which is ChrisO.

Make sure you explain that Chris was violating not one, but two Wikipedia policies, Reliable Sourcing and BLP, by using a self-published source (actually, one is a guideline but I doubt the UK government will understand or care about the difference). Point out that WP's admin corps did not spring into action to stop what ChrisO was doing. I think this example would be especially useful since you can put a real name to the editor who was doing it, who lives in the UK, and the person he was defaming is a peer in the British government.

I can't make any sense of the edit trail. It sounds good, but some questions:

1. In what sense was the information added 'negative'? Was it unsourced? Did it fail the balance test?
2. Which sources were not reliable?
3. Why actually didn't admins spring into action?
4. How was ChrisO aided in his return?

Thanks

See here for the leak Cla was looking for.

[Peter Damian]

I have the usual problem of making sense of this list of links to Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia, bits of leaked correspondence. Even the timeline is difficult given difference in timestamp conventions.

How do we make any sense of this interchange? Was it OK that Prioryman returned as a vanished user? What is the overall context?

----------------------
22:55, 16 December 2010 Avraham blocks Prioryman. Why?

23:01:05 16 Dec 2010 ChrisO writes to Arbcom saying "Would you mind please telling Avraham to stop blocking me? You reversed his previous block of my IP address and he has now blocked my replacement account again. Did nobody tell him not to do so?" Don't understand this.

6 Dec 2010 18:21:24 -0500 [not sure how to read the timestamp here] Avraham writes to ChrisO apologising for the block, saying "no one has informed me"

01:41, 17 December 2010 Roger Davies unblocks Prioryman

[Peter Damian]

Meanwhile I am struggling here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Act...comments.2C_but to get anything meaningful from WMUK about their correspondence with UKCC. As soon as people say things like 'why do you want to know this', or 'trust us' or 'trust as, we know what we are doing' or 'that is between us and X', then I automatically question whether I trust them, or whether it should be between them and X, and so on.

Oh yes and they are trying the 'we have already answered your questions' bit.

[Cla68]

Meanwhile I am struggling here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Act...comments.2C_but to get anything meaningful from WMUK about their correspondence with UKCC. As soon as people say things like 'why do you want to know this', or 'trust us' or 'trust as, we know what we are doing' or 'that is between us and X', then I automatically question whether I trust them, or whether it should be between them and X, and so on.

Oh yes and they are trying the 'we have already answered your questions' bit.

Did you also try asking the CC? The government agency involved should have kept a copy of the WMUK's application submission and associated documents. Anyway, I'll get you more details on ChrisO's antics with the Monckton article.

[Peter Damian]

Did you also try asking the CC? The government agency involved should have kept a copy of the WMUK's application submission and associated documents. Anyway, I'll get you more details on ChrisO's antics with the Monckton article.

That is the next step. If I am in dispute with a neighbour (or anyone) my principle is to take it up with the neighbour first and discuss amicably, rather than involve neighbours, authorities, whatever.

More details on the Monckton thing would be useful.

[Detective]

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

Of course it's true. Just look at how easily Daniel Brandt got his BLP deleted just by writing to OTRS.

[Daniel Brandt]

He says “no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS” Is that true?

Of course it's true. Just look at how easily Daniel Brandt got his BLP deleted just by writing to OTRS.

lol. SlimVirgin, the person who started the BLP on me without my knowledge, before I even knew what Wikipedia was and couldn't have cared less about it, said it best:

We need to get rid of that article. We've subjected Brandt to hundreds of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs — wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made complete fools of ourselves as a project.

No matter the merits of the article, the process he's been put through is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.

[lonza leggiera]

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 ....

No, it wasn't the Charity Commission in that case. It was Her Majesty's Custom's and Revenue. Registration as a charity by the Charities Commission and recognition as a charity for tax purposes by HM Customs and Revenue are completely separate processes—although the former is a requirement for the latter unless the annual income of the charity concerned is less than £5,000 or it is "excepted" or "exempt".

Orlowski's register article contains a link to a mailing list on which Andrew Turvey, Wikimedia UK's secretary, reproduces the rejection letter from HM Customs and Revenue. Turvey's commentary and the replies to it on the mailing list indicate that the Wikimedia directors simply didn't do their homework before submitting their application. In his email, for instance, Turvey states that they should "probably" stop referring to themselves as an "exempt charity". What they meant by that is anybody's guess, since Wikimedia UK very clearly does not fall under any of the classes of "excepted" or "exempt" charities listed on the above-linked page on the Charities Commission website. Presumably, the reason why Wiki UK applied directly to HM Customs and Revenue without first registering with the Charities Commission is that their annual income at that time was less than £5,000. That may be what they meant in referring to it as an "exempt charity".

Turvey also says "Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) ... ". It would be interesting to see what this "confirmation" consisted of. I strongly suspect that Turvey has misunderstood it, since his statement is inconsistent with what is written on the Gift Aid basics page of HM Customs an Revenue's website:

You don't have to register to claim Gift Aid but your charity must be recognised by HMRC as a charity for tax purposes. Recognition by HMRC as a charity is a separate process from registering with the Charity Commission as a charity.

....
So kudos to Jonathan Burchfield, partner at the law firm Stone King (specialists in Charity and Education Law, for reversing this decision:

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)

“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)

.....
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.

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.

I'm afraid you appear to have made insufficient allowance for the amount of spin in the Stone-King press release. In all Burchfield's self-promotional boasting of having got the Charities Commission to "update" UK charities law, he has failed to mention one crucial detail which might make the Charity Commission's decision seem a little less revolutionary. On October 16th, 2011, an extraordinary general meeting of Wikipedia UK voted to alter its memorandum and articles of association by replacing its original objects (which HM Customs and Revenue—and presumably also the Charities Commission—had rejected as inadequate to establish that its purposes were entirely charitable) with their current ones. The amendments were lodged with Companies House 4 days later.

According to Wiki UK's page on the Charity Commission's website, Companies House registered the amended memorandum and articles on October 26th, and the Charities Commission registered Wiki UK as a charity on November 3rd. According to van Haeften's account the whole process of getting themselves registered took a total of 12 weeks. It would appear that the first 10 of those weeks were spent "negotiating" (or arguing) with the Charities Commission, and formulating a statement of objects which they could be confident of being accepted as establishing a charitable purpose. And, hey presto! Within two weeks of amending their objects they were registered as a charity.

There is still one aspect of all this which I don't understand. On their website, Wiki UK are now claiming to be eligible for gift aid tax refunds from HM Revenue and Customs. But, as I pointed out above, registration as a charity with the Charities Commission is not sufficient by itself to achieve this status. A page on HM Customs and Revenue's website seems to indicate that once an organisation had been registered as a charity by the Charities Commission it is pretty much a formality for them to get recognised as a charity for tax purposes by HM Customs and Revenue. But, as I pointed out above, the website also seems to make it clear that this formality must still be completed before the charity can claim gift aid tax relief. I can find no indication anywhere that Wiki UK has actually completed this formality. If they have, HM Customs and Revenue should have issued them a reference number which UK donors need to quote in their tax returns for the tax on their gifts to be refunded to Wiki UK. But the only numbers Wiki UK quotes on its gift aid form are its company and charity registration numbers. On my reading of HM Customs and Revenue's website, there seems no reason to believe that the reference number it issues would be the same as either of those two numbers.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Peter Damian]

[...]

Thanks for the long commentary but the fact remains that HMRC recognition is a formality, whereas recognition by the UKCC is not, and has to be argued for.

I am trying to get WMUK to give me any information at all about how it satisified UKCC that its objects were in the general public interest or 'utility'. So far, stonewalling and obfuscation, ranging from 'we are not legally obliged to tell you ' to 'do you really think that our lawyers would deceive the UKCC' to 'we have already answered your questions'.

To help them, I have reduced my questions to two: (1) whether the UKCC asked anything about controls over malicious biographies, and what (2) WMUK replied.

[Peter Damian]

The stonewalling continues http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan . They are now refusing to answer questions on account of my "petty, spiteful, and vindictive campaign against Wikipedia". The question is over what evidence WMUK provided to UKCC over controls on malicious biographies.

[dogbiscuit]

Locally, I've had an interesting update. At the beginning of this year we identified we had a substantial fraud in our village hall charity. The CC did not advise going to the police, their advice was it was better to sort it out privately because that way we might get the money back. The fraudster did return the moneys but without an admission of guilt - it was an administrative misunderstanding that just happened to involve fake invoices and emails.

I have been perusing this as the same group of people that allowed this to happen were involved in the local scout group. The police were advised several times, but they would not take action with the feeble excuse of the victim led policy - which they interpret as not investigating crime without a complaint from the victim, when I had good circumstantial evidence that it was likely that a fraud had been committed elsewhere.

After strong denials from the scouting organisation that there were any problems, it has now come out that there has been a significant fraud at the scout group by the same person.

The point is that the CC itself has failed the community. My perspective was that this needed to be dealt with to protect the wider community, the CC only were interested in the accounts of the charity.

The point is that we cannot trust the public watchdogs to protect the real public interest. The CC's main interest is in protecting the reputation of the CC - so the real traction is to come up with information that the CC can recognise as showing that they did not perform due diligence, and then working from there with a CC motivated to cover themselves.

[GlassBeadGame]

Failure to act upon fraud or theft is a very different kind of thing than deciding whether a particular kind of activity should be given the status of a charity. My own view is that a project that makes use of "contributors" who are pursuing their own individual ends on a website that hosts articles is not a proper charitable activity. Even less so for merely supporting this type of website without directly hosting any content. A rigorous discussion of the issues raised by the charitable application of the UK chapter would certainly shed light on the hollow nature of "collaboration" on WMF/chapter projects.

Despite my view I find Petey's self appointed intervention as some kind of party into the CC's decision to be appalling. This type of action turns pursuit of charitable status into an adversarial process. This can only serve to undermine the charitable sector and cheapen civil society. Much better to live with the CC's decision than to let another important social institution fall prey to another Wikipedian dispute spilling its bounds. The last thing that is needed is making the charitable sector another place for their endless war of all against all.

I am sure that at the end of the day the CC will find Petey to lack something akin to "standing" and to send him packing as an intermeddler. Then the Wikipedians, both on WR and on WP, can return to their usual threats-lies-outings-stalking-leaked correspondence-hacked emails and a vanity press that dissects the family financials of opponents. All without causing any harm to people who are trying to actually help others.

Meanwhile I marvel at he cluelessness of Petey in expecting some kind of helping hand from the very people he seeks to undermine. They owe him nothing at all including being nice.

[thekohser]

GBG came back. To criticize a leading member of WR. Surprise, surprise.

[Peter Damian]

Failure to act upon fraud or theft is a very different kind of thing than deciding whether a particular kind of activity should be given the status of a charity. My own view is that a project that makes use of "contributors" who are pursuing their own individual ends on a website that hosts articles is not a proper charitable activity. Even less so for merely supporting this type of website without directly hosting any content. A rigorous discussion of the issues raised by the charitable application of the UK chapter would certainly shed light on the hollow nature of "collaboration" on WMF/chapter projects.

So we agree there, right.

Despite my view I find Petey's self appointed intervention as some kind of party into the CC's decision to be appalling.

Do I need some kind of 'appointment' then? Who does this?

This type of action act turns pursuit of charitable status into an adversarial process.

If someone's pursuit of charitable status is not legitimate, why shouldn't it be adversarial? What are you talking about?

This can only serve to undermine the charitable sector and cheapen civil society.

On the contrary, it is those who set up fake charities who undermine it. And who attack those who seek scrutiny.

Much better to live with the CC's decision than to let another important social institution fall prey to another Wikipedian dispute spilling its bounds. The last thing that is needed is making the charitable sector another place for their endless war of all against all.

I don't follow this argument.

I am sure that at the end of the day the CC will find Petey to lack something akin to "standing" and to send him packing as an intermeddler.

Oh right, this is because I wasn't appointed, yes?

Meanwhile I marvel at he cluelessness of Petey in expecting some kind of helping hand from the very people he seeks to undermine. They owe him nothing at all including being nice.

Not with you. It is a principle of the UKCC, and it is a good one, that you first take your questions and challenge to the charity itself. I am simply following protocol here. You understand UK procedures, yes?

[GlassBeadGame]

You understand UK procedures, yes?

That would be your own fetish, not mine and I can't say I pay it any mind. Still I'm sure I understand that better than you understand "standing," Prof. Budz-in-ski.

GBG came back. To criticize a leading member of WR. Surprise, surprise.

Came back? I never threatened, stormed off or even complained. That would be your Wiki pal Petey.

So where did we leave off? Oh yeah, fuck you Kohs.

[Malleus]

Failure to act upon fraud or theft is a very different kind of thing than deciding whether a particular kind of activity should be given the status of a charity. My own view is that a project that makes use of "contributors" who are pursuing their own individual ends on a website that hosts articles is not a proper charitable activity.

And my view is that you're clearly a fruit cake in need of professional help.

[EricBarbour]

Where were we? Oh yeah, here.

This does not look like PD is "trolling" to me, and yes, I would say that Dalton and Mitchell are stonewalling him. Badly.

I'd go there and comment, but then I'm not a UK citizen. Think I should anyway?

[GlassBeadGame]

Where were we? Oh yeah, here.

This does not look like PD is "trolling" to me, and yes, I would say that Dalton and Mitchell are stonewalling him. Badly.

I'd go there and comment, but then I'm not a UK citizen. Think I should anyway?

They should never have given Petey the time of day. Looks like the usual intra-wiki squabbling (Duns Scotus...I knew Duns Scotus...and you sir are no Duns Scotus) without any sense of what might be of interest to non-Wikipedians. He is seeking to spread the dispute into another forum... a very common Wikipedian tacit. "Our Wikipedians are better than their Wikipedians" is a fool's game. If allowed to play out out here it will encourage each form of charity (arts, education, public welfare) to exclude the others rather than the healthy unity that usually characterizes this diverse sector.

[thekohser]

... a very common Wikipedian tacit.

Eff you, too, Classy Glassy.

[Peter Damian]

Where were we? Oh yeah, here.

This does not look like PD is "trolling" to me, and yes, I would say that Dalton and Mitchell are stonewalling him. Badly.

I'd go there and comment, but then I'm not a UK citizen. Think I should anyway?

Why not? I am getting nowhere, so I am going to apply directly under the UK Freedom of Information Act. What an irony.

You don't need me to tell you about Wikipedia and BLPs. You have been around long enough to know as much as I do about them. That is my point. You don't actually want information. --Tango 23:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want you to tell me about BLPs. I want you or someone to tell me what WMUK told the UK Charity Commission about BLPs. UKCC recognised WMUK as a charity because of assurances given that there were sufficient control over BLPs. I want to know what those assurances were. In any case, I will now be asking UK Charity Commission for those documents under the Freedom of Information Act. What a supreme irony. An organisation whose charitable purpose is that information should be free, is refusing to comply with a legal requirement for transparency and openness. Peter Damian 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

Why not? I am getting nowhere, so I am going to apply directly under the UK Freedom of Information Act. What an irony.

I'll try tomorrow. Probably a waste of effort.

You've been unable to find any other UK citizens who will help you with this?
Perhaps a high priority should be to find allies.

The Monckton case is a real mess, and probably impossible to explain in a few sentences.
Ask Cla, he was directly involved.

[Peter Damian]

I'll try tomorrow. Probably a waste of effort.

The point was simply to prove that they will never publish the really important stuff. Definitely worth the effort.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

Why not? I am getting nowhere, so I am going to apply directly under the UK Freedom of Information Act. What an irony.

So after weeks of carrying on about the injustice of the CCs reconsideration granting the charity status you are only just now abandoning your silly game of trying to crowd source what was related to the CC? A FOI should have been have been the starting point. In fact it should have been a prerequisite to even publicly engaging on the matter. More evidence that you are a busy-body without proper connection or interest in the matter to even be heard in any official manner. You just want your old wiki pals to talk with you about something...anything at all.

[Peter Damian]

A FOI should have been have been the starting point. In fact it should have been a prerequisite to even publicly engaging on the matter.

No. That is not the correct process. I have taken advice on this. You always go to the charity first, to try and resolve the matter amicably and reasonably, which is what I was trying to do. If that fails, you try a freedom of information request. Not least for practical reasons. The UKCC wants to avoid the bureaucracy and hassle of filing the request.

You are from the MidWest, according to your signature. You clearly understand nothing of the due process and practices that we observe here in the UK, nor UK charity law. So stop calling me an interfering busybody, which is rich coming from you.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

A FOI should have been have been the starting point. In fact it should have been a prerequisite to even publicly engaging on the matter.

No. That is not the correct process. I have taken advice on this.

Worth every penny no doubt. I suppose you felt the need to "exhaust crowd sourcing" first.

You always go to the charity first, to try and resolve the matter amicably and reasonably, which is what I was trying to do. If that fails, you try a freedom of information request. Not least for practical reasons. The UKCC wants to avoid the bureaucracy and hassle of filing the request.

You are from the MidWest, according to your signature. You clearly understand nothing of the due process and practices that we observe here in the UK, nor UK charity law. So stop calling me an interfering busybody, which is rich coming from you.

Resolve this this on friendly terms? Really? Do you expect them to turn and say "By God, Petey, we are not a proper chartity after all. We will now cease to exist as it is only right." Or are you just not convinced of your own postion? It might occur to a less rigid person that "resolve amicably" means "stop wasting everybody's time."

I have sufficient boundaries to limit myself to discussion and opinion without interjecting myself as principal. You lack these boundaries and now seem to feel you can decide who is entitled to even have opinions on the matter.

[dogbiscuit]

Why not? I am getting nowhere, so I am going to apply directly under the UK Freedom of Information Act. What an irony.

So after weeks of carrying on about the injustice of the CCs reconsideration granting the charity status you are only just now abandoning your silly game of trying to crowd source what was related to the CC? A FOI should have been have been the starting point. In fact it should have been a prerequisite to even publicly engaging on the matter. More evidence that you are a busy-body without proper connection or interest in the matter to even be heard in any official manner. You just want your old wiki pals to talk with you about something...anything at all.

FOI's are actually a last resort. The first point is to ask for the information, and even with the CC it is best to ask informally, as an FOI request sends UK organisations into a formal process which creates delay and paperwork.

In the UK, it generally is up to individuals to take responsibility for the investigation. The authorities are either reluctant to involve themselves or do not have the requisite knowledge. Peter's actions are both normal and proper - an individual gathering evidence and then presenting it to the appropriate body.

As is clear, Peter is not acting alone, and as a UK citizen I am both experienced in using FOI and contacting the CC, and support Peter's appropriate actions. In the UK there is a presumption that the supervising bodies are actively monitoring, whereas they universally are reactive bodies and too often we get the situation (like the current press scandal) where nothing is done. As it is assumed that the controlling quangos are both competent and active, it usually needs a major incident to get people to realise that they need to take personal responsibility to follow up issues that interest them.

We have learned at WR that there is little understanding or interest in the corrupt (as in broken) nature of governance at Wikipedia, and even now Sue Gardner is only just accepting that there is a problem with this. Whether you are a supporter or against Wikipedia, it is surely in everyone's interest to have the systems of governance exposed to public scrutiny and only when this is run in ways that normal people would recognise as best practice should there be any let up in any and all means of pressurising the organisation to reform. Peter is doing Good Works.

[GlassBeadGame]

Why not? I am getting nowhere, so I am going to apply directly under the UK Freedom of Information Act. What an irony.

So after weeks of carrying on about the injustice of the CCs reconsideration granting the charity status you are only just now abandoning your silly game of trying to crowd source what was related to the CC? A FOI should have been have been the starting point. In fact it should have been a prerequisite to even publicly engaging on the matter. More evidence that you are a busy-body without proper connection or interest in the matter to even be heard in any official manner. You just want your old wiki pals to talk with you about something...anything at all.

FOI's are actually a last resort. The first point is to ask for the information, and even with the CC it is best to ask informally, as an FOI request sends UK organisations into a formal process which creates delay and paperwork.

In the UK, it generally is up to individuals to take responsibility for the investigation. The authorities are either reluctant to involve themselves or do not have the requisite knowledge. Peter's actions are both normal and proper - an individual gathering evidence and then presenting it to the appropriate body.

As is clear, Peter is not acting alone, and as a UK citizen I am both experienced in using FOI and contacting the CC, and support Peter's appropriate actions. In the UK there is a presumption that the supervising bodies are actively monitoring, whereas they universally are reactive bodies and too often we get the situation (like the current press scandal) where nothing is done. As it is assumed that the controlling quangos are both competent and active, it usually needs a major incident to get people to realise that they need to take personal responsibility to follow up issues that interest them.

We have learned at WR that there is little understanding or interest in the corrupt (as in broken) nature of governance at Wikipedia, and even now Sue Gardner is only just accepting that there is a problem with this. Whether you are a supporter or against Wikipedia, it is surely in everyone's interest to have the systems of governance exposed to public scrutiny and only when this is run in ways that normal people would recognise as best practice should there be any let up in any and all means of pressurising the organisation to reform. Peter is doing Good Works.

Sycophantic blabber.

[Tarc]

Sycophantic blabber.

Would you care to tell us exactly what your Statler & Waldorf shtick has ever accomplished in all the years you've spent here at WR fist-waving? At least these guys are doing something concrete.

[thekohser]

Sycophantic blabber.

GlassBeadGame... now on my "Ignore this user" list. Congratulations, as it takes quite a bit to arrive on that very limited list of WR users.

[Zoloft]

Sycophantic blabber.

GlassBeadGame... now on my "Ignore this user" list. Congratulations, as it takes quite a bit to arrive on that very limited list of WR users.

Ditto.

[GlassBeadGame]

Events will tell, providing pressure is kept on Petey not to sneak out (again) when no one's looking. No way the CC is granting your precious interloper any substantive relief. I suppose we will have to hear about his "victory" when his FOI request is granted which amounts to giving him a copy of what the UK chapter filed.

[EricBarbour]

Events will tell, providing pressure is kept on Petey not to sneak out (again) when no one's looking. No way the CC is granting your precious interloper any substantive relief. I suppose we will have hear about his "victory" when his FOI request is granted which amounts to giving him a copy of what the UK chapter filed.

Piss off, if you're not going to offer to help.

To all others: this is what I propose. Since posting messages on WMUK's wiki is ineffective, I'm going
to send old-fashioned letters, on that "paper" stuff, to the WMUK and the UKCC, asking them
for information on WMUK's filing.

Anyone who wishes to assist is welcome to send your own letters. Remember to focus on what WMUK
claimed about BLP defamation being "under control", when you and I both damn well know they aren't.
Also remember to bring up the original WMUK imbroglio, in which David Gerard, David Gerard's concubine,
and Alison Wheeler (did you know she has an admin sock account?) basically ran Wikimedia UK
into the ground.

They failed to raise any substantial funds, and to top it off, they put Paul "FT2" Sinclair
in charge of the finances, with no oversight and no consultation with the board of directors.
Then closed it all down when people started asking questions.

I've got PROOF that BLPs are a mess, and that most of whatever WMUK told the Charity Commission
is utter fantasy and lies. It was being saved for future use (and you know what that is by now), but
I'm willing to use some of it to deal with this WMUK situation.

You might not think this matters, but all these little things add up. Governments are big slow
stupid things, and it takes a lot to get them to act. I'm sure the UKCC is swamped with charity
requests and other issues. That's always the problem with electronic messages, there's always
some way to claim they "never got" something. If it's on paper, they can't ignore it as easily.

Don't send them emails and such. Send them paper.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
<address redacted>

Dame Suzi Leather, DBE
UK Charity Commission Direct
PO Box 1227
Liverpool
L69 3UG

This post has been edited by gomi:

[Cla68]

Sycophantic blabber.

Would you care to tell us exactly what your Statler & Waldorf shtick has ever accomplished in all the years you've spent here at WR fist-waving? At least these guys are doing something concrete.

GBG, I agree with the others that you are mistaken here. Peter was right to try to get the information from the UK chapter first before doing the FOIA request.

[GlassBeadGame]

Piss off, if you're not going to offer to help.

Just when exactly did you and Petey become the boss of me? I'm not here to "help" you. "Collaboration" with a pack of Wikipedians is about the most unattractive thing imaginable. You have destroyed WR as any kind voice of criticism and now seek "helpers," sycophants and cheerleaders for your fantasy of a some "provisional wiki state."

There will be no published "book." The attempt to meddle with the UK Chapters charitable status will go exactly nowhere. Along the way in reaching this level of fail you will have reduced the scope of discussion on WR to a single Wikipedian point of view.

[SB_Johnny]

Just when exactly did you and Petey become the boss of me?

[dogbiscuit]

Piss off, if you're not going to offer to help.

Just when exactly did you and Petey become the boss of me? I'm not here to "help" you. "Collaboration" with a pack of Wikipedians is about the most unattractive thing imaginable. You have destroyed WR as any kind voice of criticism and now seek "helpers," sycophants and cheerleaders for your fantasy of a some "provisional wiki state."

There will be no published "book." The attempt to meddle with the UK Chapters charitable status will go exactly nowhere. Along the way in reaching this level of fail you will have reduced the scope of discussion on WR to a single Wikipedian point of view.

When did you decide to appoint yourself the arbitrator of appropriate actions of other people?

There is a long running theme at WR that the major issue of Wikipedia is governance, and an almost equally long running theme that it is not possible to get traction on this issue with the WMF.

Here there is an interesting opportunity to challenge the WMF and its associate organisations to prove how they have instituted proper controls.

I am not overly concerned whether they retain charitable status or not, however, it should be of concern to the WMF that an associated organisation:

a) has apparently had to make claims that it has editorial control (and why haven't the Wiki-faithful exploded in their usual way at any suggestion anyone but them have control?)
b) may have misled legal bodies in suggesting that they have control.

If it is necessary for the WMF to have the Wikimedia UK organisation - and a donation of £500k to kick-start the organisation seems to suggest that they perceive some necessity - then they should be ensuring that due diligence has been performed.

If the impact of being challenged over this is that the WMF feel threatened and therefore feel the need to address issues of governance, then that is a good outcome. However, I object to my tax being used to fund Wikimedia UK where I genuinely cannot see that it has met the criteria of a charity according to the laws in the country it operates.

Got to try and do the right thing and not worry about the success, else you are doing the wrong thing and part of the disease.

[GlassBeadGame]

Piss off, if you're not going to offer to help.

Just when exactly did you and Petey become the boss of me? I'm not here to "help" you. "Collaboration" with a pack of Wikipedians is about the most unattractive thing imaginable. You have destroyed WR as any kind voice of criticism and now seek "helpers," sycophants and cheerleaders for your fantasy of a some "provisional wiki state."

There will be no published "book." The attempt to meddle with the UK Chapters charitable status will go exactly nowhere. Along the way in reaching this level of fail you will have reduced the scope of discussion on WR to a single Wikipedian point of view.

When did you decide to appoint yourself the arbitrator of appropriate actions of other people?

There is a long running theme at WR that the major issue of Wikipedia is governance, and an almost equally long running theme that it is not possible to get traction on this issue with the WMF.

Here there is an interesting opportunity to challenge the WMF and its associate organisations to prove how they have instituted proper controls.

I am not overly concerned whether they retain charitable status or not, however, it should be of concern to the WMF that an associated organisation:

a) has apparently had to make claims that it has editorial control (and why haven't the Wiki-faithful exploded in their usual way at any suggestion anyone but them have control?)
b) may have misled legal bodies in suggesting that they have control.

If it is necessary for the WMF to have the Wikimedia UK organisation - and a donation of £500k to kick-start the organisation seems to suggest that they perceive some necessity - then they should be ensuring that due diligence has been performed.

If the impact of being challenged over this is that the WMF feel threatened and therefore feel the need to address issues of governance, then that is a good outcome. However, I object to my tax being used to fund Wikimedia UK where I genuinely cannot see that it has met the criteria of a charity according to the laws in the country it operates.

Got to try and do the right thing and not worry about the success, else you are doing the wrong thing and part of the disease.

You should much more concerned with the mischief and wreckage that will come to charitable projects from allowing disgruntled and disaffected groupings formerly associated with the non-profit from using inappropriately adversarial and protracted challenges to their charitable status as a new tool for harassment, especial when fueled by crowd souring and social media. The harm caused by a wrong decision granting charitable status is trivial and paid for the most part by stupid but willing givers. Allowing mischievous interlopers to meddle in the application process can kill valuable charities in the cradle.

[Emperor]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) at seeing all of GBG's former asskissers turn on him

You have concerns, send a letter. Or not. The world won't end, right or wrong.

The fact that this thread has five pages and Wikimedia UK has a big discussion and still no letter is in the mail just shows laziness and dysfunction... so yeah I feel some of GBG's frustration with you jerkies.

[TungstenCarbide]

Yaaaawn...


On this note I'd like to point out that John Travolta's performance in Saturday Night Fever was rare genius. It's been more than three decades and human kind's appreciation is still growing. As an example, for those of you living under a rock and unaware, here's a recent kpop tribute;



This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[dogbiscuit]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) at seeing all of GBG's former asskissers turn on him

You have concerns, send a letter. Or not. The world won't end, right or wrong.

The fact that this thread has five pages and Wikimedia UK has a big discussion and still no letter is in the mail just shows laziness and dysfunction... so yeah I feel some of GBG's frustration with you jerkies.

Fuck off Emperor, as ever the circling vulture, one of WR's few genuine trolls who only ever posts to stir things up.

FWIW, I'd already written an informal enquiry acknowledged on the 24/11/11 to be responded to in 15 working days. No response as yet.

Thank you for your email to the Charity Commission. We aim to give you a full and clear response within fifteen working days from receipt. Please note it is not necessary to also send us a paper version unless this has been specifically requested by us.

Very often the fastest way to answer your enquiries will be to look at the frequent questions and guidance on our website www.charitycommission.gov.uk. You can also view the Welsh version of our website by clicking on 'Cymraeg' in the top right-hand corner of our home page.

[EricBarbour]

The fact that this thread has five pages and Wikimedia UK has a big discussion and still no letter is in the mail just shows laziness and dysfunction...

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v389/rougal/1323474166553.jpg)

I just dropped it in the mailbox.
Have a wonderful day, fool.

[Emperor]

I just dropped it in the mailbox.

Very good!

[dogbiscuit]

Only a couple of days late...

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 November concerning Wiki UK Limited.

In your e-mail you ask to see exactly how the Charity Commission was presented with the argument that Wikimedia UK had editorial control. We are considering your request in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Wiki UK is concerned with promoting, improving and supporting the resource and facility provided by Wikimedia Foundation, a US not-for-profit organisation with tax exempt status. Although it may act to encourage the improvement of the content in a particular subject area, it does not itself directly control the content.

Wiki UK has confirmed to us that a range of measures have been introduced to control information since 2005 to remove “vandalism” (the addition, removal or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity) and have a continual process of improvement of articles to remove or improve inaccurate material.

There are policies of Verifiability, Neutrality and No Original Research which control material that does not live up to basic editorial principles. This is in addition to Recent Changes Patrol, which monitors new edits.


The policies are enforced in a number of ways, notably by deletion which happens on a daily basis. There are approximately 144,000 registered editors, each having responsibility for a watch list of articles. In addition, there are approximately 1,500 administrators (for English Wikipedia) who investigate any areas of dispute and have the power to delete and block users from editing. Software is also available to detect blocked users. The controls and processes are overseen by a regulatory committee.

I have attached an appendix to this e-mail which includes the relevant extracts from correspondence received from Wiki UK (“WMUK”) and their solicitors in relation to the above.

In your e-mail you say you are considering a complaint about the charity. May I refer you to our publication CC47 – Complaints about Charities, available on our website at http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc47.aspx which sets out the sort of issues which we will and will not become involved in, together with the sort of information you would need to provide us with. Any complaints should be sent in the first instance to Charity Commission Direct (see our website for their contact details). If you have any queries about the complaints process please call Charity Commission Direct on 0845 3000 218.

I hope this is of assistance.

I've skimmed through the appendix email, a bit long to post here, and it contains the superficial arguments from the Wiki UK solicitor - nothing in there that makes me think that CC have acted unreasonably - the opposite, but the main thrust of the argument is that before 2007, Wikipedia was broken, and now they have lots of policies that mean it is fixed. They specifically mention Verifiability, but unsurprisingly do not mention the distorted perspective of Wikipedia where they have argued long and hard - over more than 4 years, to ensure that the truth is not relevant to the debate.

Peter, perhaps you have somewhere you can post the appendix - or perhaps you should post it on the Wikimedia UK wiki page, just to give them a poke (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

Wiki UK is concerned with...

What is "Wiki UK"? Is that the official name of the Wikimedia UK charity? Or is that the Charity Commission's playful way of abbreviating the name of the organization in question? If the latter, that's not very professional.

There are approximately 144,000 registered editors, each having responsibility for a watch list of articles.

That is blatantly a falsehood. I contend that a very small percentage of active editors maintain a "watch list", and certainly none of them has the "responsibility" to do so. I also believe that the better number for registered editors who are active in a given month is more like 90,000, but I may be wrong. Certainly, the more disconcerting element is the notion that they are all maintaining a watch list, as if it has been assigned to them by some governing body.

In addition, there are approximately 1,500 administrators (for English Wikipedia)...

How many of them are legitimately active? I understand that number to be closer to 800 or 900.

The controls and processes are overseen by a regulatory committee.

Which "regulatory committee" is that? Are we suggesting that the Arbitration Committee is responsible for oversight of the controls and processes of the website? I thought that power rested with "the community" and occasionally with the Wikimedia Foundation.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[dogbiscuit]

Greg, it is all superficial and to be fair to the CC, they have no reason to dig more deeply.

What I did see here was that the suggestion that came from their solicitor's web site IIRC that they had made an argument of editorial control is not correct.

What is interesting is that we have here a quasi-legal process where the wider organisation is depending on real world interpretations of policies to present them as reasonable and appropriate and yet we know that this is not how Wikipedia really works.

It would be rather fun to find some recent examples of Guy Chapman's abusive bullying behaviour (given that the application suggests something like 2007 being a cut-off line of poor behaviour, then anything beyond that date is up for grabs, including for example, FT2 vs PoetGuy).