The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

14 Pages V « < 12 13 14  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Letter to UK Charity Commission, Is this a big enough stick? I hope so.
Eppur si muove
post Tue 13th March 2012, 10:09pm
Post #261


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 10:44am) *

A letter from the Advertising Standards Authority. My complaint was upheld, and Wikimedia UK have agreed to change the wording of their banner on the next fundraiser, to make it clear where the money is actually going.

So if your complaint was upheld how does it fit with this from Chase me ladies, I've got a really good user name for a worker for a charity that supposedly wants to get more women editing Wikipedia?
QUOTE
The single complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about our fundraising banners, made last month, has been dealt with amicably. The ASA did not believe that we had breached any rules, but they did suggest informally that we update our fundraising pages to reflect that money does go towards Wikimedia UK's Outreach activities, as well as technology and staff costs. We agreed completely with their suggestion, and we have already updated our donation pages, and have established a good relationship with the ASA.

Not believing that Wikimedia has breached any rules does not strike me as compatible with upholding a complaint against them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Tue 13th March 2012, 10:13pm
Post #262


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:12pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:58pm) *

Surely WMF UK has no control whatsoever over Wikipedia...

Therein lies the lie they told to the Charity Commission



But think about it - wasn't the Charity Commission completely irresponsible?

Yes, but most Quangos are. That's what happens when there is a lack of direct accountability.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

Did they honestly believe that a few people in the UK (and they aren't even a main component of the WMF) have control over millions of pages with thousands of users across the world? I don't think they were that stupid

I doubt they bothered to seriously test the veracity of the statement submitted by the WMUK. They lack the resources and motivation.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 9:49pm) *

- how about getting the commission sacked and put people who are willing to do the job correctly.

Quangos don't work that way, they're about who you know, not what you know.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Tue 13th March 2012, 10:13pm
Post #263


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 12th March 2012, 11:49pm) *

I think this is a good strategy. Instead of advocating revision of their charity status, instead use their charity status to obtain government oversight and control over the WMF's operations and force them to start exercising some responsibility and accountability.

But this is about the UK and WMF UK. Surely WMF UK has no control whatsoever over Wikipedia, or at least no more control than any other group of editors might have.


Blackout.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Tue 13th March 2012, 10:41pm
Post #264


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Tue 13th March 2012, 10:09pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 10:44am) *

A letter from the Advertising Standards Authority. My complaint was upheld, and Wikimedia UK have agreed to change the wording of their banner on the next fundraiser, to make it clear where the money is actually going.

So if your complaint was upheld how does it fit with this from Chase me ladies, I've got a really good user name for a worker for a charity that supposedly wants to get more women editing Wikipedia?
QUOTE
The single complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about our fundraising banners, made last month, has been dealt with amicably. The ASA did not believe that we had breached any rules, but they did suggest informally that we update our fundraising pages to reflect that money does go towards Wikimedia UK's Outreach activities, as well as technology and staff costs. We agreed completely with their suggestion, and we have already updated our donation pages, and have established a good relationship with the ASA.

Not believing that Wikimedia has breached any rules does not strike me as compatible with upholding a complaint against them.


Chase Me's statement is spin. If a government organization that exercises authority over your operations gives you an "informal suggestion" to do something, it implies that if you don't follow the suggestion it could quickly become a formal order, accompanied by increased scrutiny. Peter's efforts are working, as he is influencing WMF UK to operate more openly and honestly.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 13th March 2012, 10:42pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:15pm
Post #265


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Not directly connected but in my mind very symbolically connected:

NBC Nightly News said that Britannica is officially discontinuing its print edition because it was undermined by Wikipedia.



Britannica was a status symbol and directly connected to Britain's intellectual achievement. I hate it personally because it had a lot of academics that sold out and wrote on topics that may be similar but not directly in their expertise (for example, someone knowing 19th century novels writing about 18th century poetry). However, it was superior to the plagiarism filled nonsense that passes for many Wikipedia pages.

I would think that the UK's best interest is to stop funding the decaying of society and a system that directly undermines the legitimate intellectual reputation of the UK.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Tue 13th March 2012, 11:16pm
Post #266


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 13th March 2012, 4:58pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 12th March 2012, 11:49pm) *

I think this is a good strategy. Instead of advocating revision of their charity status, instead use their charity status to obtain government oversight and control over the WMF's operations and force them to start exercising some responsibility and accountability.

But this is about the UK and WMF UK. Surely WMF UK has no control whatsoever over Wikipedia, or at least no more control than any other group of editors might have.

Hopefully the some of the tactics of the UK front can be modified for use on the American front in the future.

Thanks largely to the hard work of Friar Kohs, there's plenty of ammo to go after the heart of the organization on a "family values" slate, and if even the soccer-hooligan-loving Brits find the organization morally corrupt, there are sure to be senators or congressmen looking for a cause (particularly during midterm elections) that will jump right on something like the Beta M situation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Wed 14th March 2012, 1:47am
Post #267


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



After HRIP7 and I accidentally tried to do the same thing at the same time and we went around in circles a bit, we moved off-topic posts here.

twilightzone.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Thu 15th March 2012, 5:37am
Post #268


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 13th March 2012, 11:16pm) *

Thanks largely to the hard work of Friar Kohs, there's plenty of ammo to go after the heart of the organization on a "family values" slate, and if even the soccer-hooligan-loving Brits find the organization morally corrupt, there are sure to be senators or congressmen looking for a cause (particularly during midterm elections) that will jump right on something like the Beta M situation.

If you're stating that America's political conservatives are more likely to help check Wikimedia's excesses than America's liberals, I think this absolutely correct.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Sun 25th March 2012, 2:34pm
Post #269


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



So basically nothing ever came of this self appointed campaign of The Petey-Bee. I was right all along and it was nothing more than intramural Wikipedian infighting.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sat 27th July 2013, 12:34pm
Post #270


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
So basically nothing ever came of this self appointed campaign of The Petey-Bee. I was right all along and it was nothing more than intramural Wikipedian infighting.


It's year 2013, there has to be an update about this situation. Perhaps Wikipedia is not accessible from the UK anymore or they have set filters to select which content is not viewable?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Sat 27th July 2013, 7:14pm
Post #271


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Sat 27th July 2013, 1:34pm) *

QUOTE
So basically nothing ever came of this self appointed campaign of The Petey-Bee. I was right all along and it was nothing more than intramural Wikipedian infighting.


It's year 2013, there has to be an update about this situation. Perhaps Wikipedia is not accessible from the UK anymore or they have set filters to select which content is not viewable?

No, shit has happened. Did you expect anything else?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Sat 27th July 2013, 8:49pm
Post #272


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Sat 27th July 2013, 8:34am) *

QUOTE
So basically nothing ever came of this self appointed campaign of The Petey-Bee. I was right all along and it was nothing more than intramural Wikipedian infighting.


It's year 2013, there has to be an update about this situation. Perhaps Wikipedia is not accessible from the UK anymore or they have set filters to select which content is not viewable?


Peter Damian's I-know-everything shtick got a bit of a puncturing by some of the others over there, particularly in regards to his overarching premise of a Slashdot-to-Wikipedia connection.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sun 28th July 2013, 12:59pm
Post #273


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
Peter Damian's I-know-everything shtick got a bit of a puncturing by some of the others over there, particularly in regards to his overarching premise of a Slashdot-to-Wikipedia connection.


A good general question would be "what do people want from Internet and communication technology?" I've already read answers similar to "i don't care about internet providing reliable information, i want downloadable files".

Have you noticed how obesity has been reclassified as "disease"? Meaning that people now will feel more justified in being exposed to various health problems while thinking "i can't do anything about it but take pills the doc has prescribed"? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=194239969

What if people feel justified and content about having incorrect information because it is what it is and they can't do anything about it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 29th July 2013, 12:49am
Post #274


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE(Peter Damian)
End goal - objective - to have appropriate and effective controls on Wikipedia. Covering porn, quality, BLP, the usual suspects.


Is this a realistic goal?

And after obesity being turned to a "disease" in the US, in Greece there's something else:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/outrage-a...f-disabilities/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jay
post Mon 29th July 2013, 6:04pm
Post #275


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 5:15pm
Member No.: 13,123



QUOTE(Text @ Mon 29th July 2013, 1:49am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian)
End goal - objective - to have appropriate and effective controls on Wikipedia. Covering porn, quality, BLP, the usual suspects.


Is this a realistic goal?

Not with Wikipedia in its current form. If they sell it off to a commercial enterprise, it could be controlled.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

14 Pages V « < 12 13 14
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 5 17, 4:54pm