Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ Letter to UK Charity Commission

Posted by: 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/wikipedia_charity_not/ (register article)

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

QUOTE
In accepting Stone King’s application on behalf of Wikimedia UK, the Commission has been at pains to point out that the publication of information useful to the public and the promotion of open content are not inherently charitable activities. Any similar organisation seeking to become registered with the Charity Commission would need to demonstrate that its activities are exclusively for the public benefit and that the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. In Wikipedia’s case, for example, the continuous development and operation of editing policies and content security tools assure an increasingly high quality of content.”
http://www.stoneking.co.uk/news/articles/-/page/1244 (Stone King press release)


QUOTE

“Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia so that it was not easily open to abuse.”
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1102747/ (Third Sector)


This is really really really important. Wikimedia's lawyers had to argue that Wikimedia can operate under the heading "object of general public utility" as proposed by Samuel Romilly in the 19th century. There is a (somewhat long and difficult) legal judgment here http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html which illustrates the principle involved. According to the Romilly principle, benefit has to be conferred on the public by the proposed ends of the charity. Political purposes are not OK, nor the furtherance of a movement such as 'the Wikimedia movement'. Some identifiable section of the community must derive a real benefit from the purpose. More details from the Charity Commission website http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/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/wikipedia-and-truth-in-fiction.html, where a gross slur remained on the site for a year and a half. What are appropriate controls for this sort of thing? Is anonymous editing an insufficient? I think so. Is making the WMUK board collectively responsible for the content of BLPs a minimum condition for good control? I think so too. Please let me have your suggestions

A thing that already puzzles me is that if WMUK must 'control and monitor' the content, the following statement from its website seems inconsistent with that.

QUOTE

Please note that we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects.” http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Indeed, the whole principle on which Wikipedia was founded was that there should be no editorial oversight in the traditional sense, and that all content would be the result of a ruthless Darwinian fight for survival. That in itself makes it impossible for WMUK to 'control and monitor' content.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 22nd November 2011, 12:37pm) *

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.

Posted by: 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]

Posted by: EricBarbour

For some extra "oomph", you could print http://www.wikitruth.info/default_035.html and http://www.wikitruth.info/default_036.html, and send the Charities Commission a copy. tongue.gif

Posted by: 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/cristinaodone/100105146/johann-hari-hounded-me-for-years-all-he-gets-is-four-months-unpaid-holiday-from-the-independent-but-the-truth-will-come-out/

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

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 22nd November 2011, 3:39pm) *

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

I suspect that http://wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html 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.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 10:00am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 22nd November 2011, 3:39pm) *

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

I suspect that http://wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html 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, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34768&pid=289173&st=0&#entry289173.

Posted by: Peter Damian

David r from meth productions
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=David+r+from+meth+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

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 3:00pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 22nd November 2011, 3:39pm) *

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

I suspect that http://wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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


QUOTE

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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Perhaps the chair of the Charity Commission should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzi_Leather.......

QUOTE
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.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 10:05pm) *

Perhaps the chair of the Charity Commission should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzi_Leather.......


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=302010068&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/2009/jul/15/charity-commission-private-schools?commentpage=1#comment-4936126

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

In fact, people have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=prev&oldid=304302510 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=prev&oldid=303930376 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=next&oldid=303409458 in her BLP for years.

Usually via IP address, though it does http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=362333932&oldid=353157906 that Galatian (T-C-L-K-R-D) doesn't like her very much.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzi_Leather&diff=184567426&oldid=123146291 expanded the article for the first time.

Gosh, Batman, I wonder who http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Charitycommissionpress is.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: timbo

Narcs suck.

t

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 24th November 2011, 1:04pm) *

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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 24th November 2011, 6:04pm) *

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: RMHED

The listing as it appears on the Commissions http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0, and the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 24th November 2011, 6:39pm) *

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.

QUOTE(timbo @ Thu 24th November 2011, 4:37pm) *

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.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 24th November 2011, 7:41pm) *

The listing as it appears on the Commissions http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0, and the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

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.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 24th November 2011, 7:41pm) *

The listing as it appears on the Commissions http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0, and the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

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. biggrin.gif After all, whatever we think of Jimbo, we will all agree that there's one thing he's very good at. tongue.gif

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 24th November 2011, 9:49pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 24th November 2011, 7:41pm) *

The listing as it appears on the Commissions http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0, and the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

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 http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board#Roger_Bamkin. A bunch of geeky white men with too much time on their hands and an inflated sense of their own importance.

Posted by: 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.

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

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Detective @ Thu 24th November 2011, 10:32pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 24th November 2011, 7:41pm) *

The listing as it appears on the Commissions http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0, and the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/ContactAndTrustees.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0.

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. biggrin.gif After all, whatever we think of Jimbo, we will all agree that there's one thing he's very good at. tongue.gif

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/38993138594619509977138.jpg/
Steve Virgin, PR consultant.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Cla68

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

Posted by: 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/article/1102747/wikimedia-uk-granted-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

QUOTE

In accepting Stone King’s application on behalf of Wikimedia UK, the Commission has been at pains to point out that the publication of information useful to the public and the promotion of open content are not inherently charitable activities. Any similar organisation seeking to become registered with the Charity Commission would need to demonstrate that its activities are exclusively for the public benefit and that the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. In Wikipedia’s case, for example, the continuous development and operation of editing policies and content security tools assure an increasingly high quality of content.


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.

Posted by: 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?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/seigen.mp3, 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:

QUOTE
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.


Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 27th November 2011, 4:20pm) *

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?

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Here is a transcription of the Fanning interview.

QUOTE

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 "


Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Thankfully, it appears that Wikipedia does have high standards.

QUOTE

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_Activity_Plan#How_is_this_money_being_spent.3F

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 27th November 2011, 9:25pm) *

Thankfully, it appears that Wikipedia does have high standards.

QUOTE

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_Activity_Plan#How_is_this_money_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.

Posted by: lilburne

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

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 27th November 2011, 11:37pm) *

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

Image

Posted by: timbo

QUOTE

Narcs suck.

t


QUOTE

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

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 28th November 2011, 7:48am) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 27th November 2011, 11:37pm) *

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

Image


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.


Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(timbo @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:52am) *

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?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE
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.


Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 28th November 2011, 10:39pm) *

QUOTE
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

QUOTE

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)


Posted by: timbo

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 28th November 2011, 2:37pm) *

QUOTE(timbo @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:52am) *

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(timbo @ Tue 29th November 2011, 7:28pm) *

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?

Posted by: 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_Activity_Plan#Draft_of_the_summary_of_my_proposed_submission_to_the_UK_Charity_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?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 30th November 2011, 8:11pm) *

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.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Wed 30th November 2011, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 30th November 2011, 8:11pm) *

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.)

Posted by: lilburne

Of concern would be people from WMFUK interacting with children online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-children-interacting-safety#moderators-hosts-and-statutory-checks

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(timbo @ Tue 29th November 2011, 2:28pm) *

you're too smart for that.

As opposed to you... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 30th November 2011, 3:11pm) *

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".



Posted by: 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: http://michiganmessenger.com/22336/grebner-files-libel-suit-over-wikipedia-edits. Here's another (this one quite recent): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/louis-bacon-wikipedia-defamation-lawsuit_n_859499.html.

Posted by: 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley article, as discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30614&view=findpost&p=250375. 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prioryman, at that time was editing under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&offset=20100727225251&action=history 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.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 6:28am) *

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley article, as discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30614&view=findpost&p=250375. 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prioryman, at that time was editing under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&offset=20100727225251&action=history 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 6:28am) *

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley article, as discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30614&view=findpost&p=250375. 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prioryman, at that time was editing under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&offset=20100727225251&action=history 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

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 4:40am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd December 2011, 6:28am) *

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley article, as discussed in http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30614&view=findpost&p=250375. 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prioryman, at that time was editing under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&offset=20100727225251&action=history 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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34170&st=60&p=280844&#entry280844 for the leak Cla was looking for.

Posted by: 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

Posted by: Peter Damian

Meanwhile I am struggling here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Thanks_for_the_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.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 3rd December 2011, 1:33pm) *

Meanwhile I am struggling here http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Thanks_for_the_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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 4th December 2011, 8:25am) *

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.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 30th November 2011, 8:11pm) *

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.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

QUOTE(Detective @ Tue 6th December 2011, 3:42pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 30th November 2011, 8:11pm) *

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, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/074818.html:
QUOTE
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.

Posted by: lonza leggiera

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 7:37am) *

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 http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/Excepted_charities_index.aspx.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ contains http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01075.html 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 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/basics.htm of HM Customs an Revenue's website:
QUOTE(HM Customs and Revenue)

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.


QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 23rd November 2011, 7:37am) *

....
So kudos to Jonathan Burchfield, partner at the law firm Stone King (specialists in Charity and Education Law, for reversing this decision:
QUOTE
In accepting Stone King’s application on behalf of Wikimedia UK, the Commission has been at pains to point out that the publication of information useful to the public and the promotion of open content are not inherently charitable activities. Any similar organisation seeking to become registered with the Charity Commission would need to demonstrate that its activities are exclusively for the public benefit and that the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. In Wikipedia’s case, for example, the continuous development and operation of editing policies and content security tools assure an increasingly high quality of content.”
http://www.stoneking.co.uk/news/articles/-/page/1244 (Stone King press release)

QUOTE

“Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia so that it was not easily open to abuse.”
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1102747/ (Third Sector)

.....
A thing that already puzzles me is that if WMUK must 'control and monitor' the content, the following statement from its website seems inconsistent with that.

QUOTE

Please note that we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects.” http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Indeed, the whole principle on which Wikipedia was founded was that there should be no editorial oversight in the traditional sense, and that all content would be the result of a ruthless Darwinian fight for survival. That in itself makes it impossible for WMUK to 'control and monitor' content.

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 http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2011/10/27/ 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 http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Objects. The amendments were lodged with Companies House 4 days later.

According to http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0 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 http://archive.bambuser.com/t/a_0008/bb1a994a-355f-4db9-8715-616818d4923f/index.m3u8 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 http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/gift-aid-form 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. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/complete-form-cha1.htm 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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Wed 7th December 2011, 5:15am) *

[...]


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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: thekohser

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 17th December 2011, 4:26pm) *

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.

QUOTE

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?

QUOTE

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?

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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?

QUOTE

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?


Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 17th December 2011, 1:01pm) *

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.


QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 17th December 2011, 12:01pm) *

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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=31457&view=findpost&p=289113

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


Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 17th December 2011, 4:26pm) *

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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Where were we? Oh yeah, http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Questions_from_Edward_Buckner.

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?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 17th December 2011, 10:22pm) *

Where were we? Oh yeah, http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Questions_from_Edward_Buckner.

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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 17th December 2011, 10:45pm) *

... a very common Wikipedian tacit.


Eff you, too, Classy Glassy.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 18th December 2011, 3:22am) *

Where were we? Oh yeah, http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Questions_from_Edward_Buckner.

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.

QUOTE

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)


Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 1:01am) *

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 18th December 2011, 11:10am) *

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:01am) *


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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 12:50pm) *

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:12am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 12:50pm) *

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.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:12am) *

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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 12:50pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:01am) *


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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:41am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 12:50pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:01am) *


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.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:46am) *
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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:46am) *

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.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 18th December 2011, 6:06am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:46am) *

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 10:44am) *

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 "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/zoophilia_wikiscandal/" Sinclair
in charge of the finances, with no oversight and no consultation with the board of directors.
Then closed it all down when people http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t20079.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ 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

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 18th December 2011, 1:58pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 8:46am) *
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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:48pm) *


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.


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 6:17pm) *
Just when exactly did you and Petey become the boss of me?


Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 11:17pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:48pm) *


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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 18th December 2011, 9:20pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 18th December 2011, 11:17pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 18th December 2011, 4:48pm) *


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.

Posted by: Emperor

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.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 19th December 2011, 6:24am) *

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;


Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 19th December 2011, 6:24am) *

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.

QUOTE
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.




Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 19th December 2011, 6:24am) *
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...

Image

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

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 19th December 2011, 6:07am) *

I just dropped it in the mailbox.


Very good!

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Only a couple of days late...

QUOTE

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 smile.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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.

Posted by: 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).

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Re-reading Peter's very first post here, it is clear that the second quote mis-represents the press release and suggests the solicitor's made assertions about Wiki UK's controls that were not in the original press release...

Indeed we have a good example here of Verifiability not Truth allowing us to say about Wikimedia UK

QUOTE
Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia
which is clearly a fraudulent misrepresentation if it were true, so we should not let the truth get in the way of this line of argument, given that Wikimedia UK have depended upon this policy in the real world.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 9:06am) *

QUOTE
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.



Yeah next they will call Wales the Founder-Not-The-Co-Founder or god forbid misspell something. Think maybe they have other matter on their plate that don't pertain to your own narrow focus nerdery?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th December 2011, 9:27am) *

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

I understand that most of my objections were minor. I suppose the one that is "worst" is that notion that more than a hundred thousand registered users are dutifully monitoring their watchlists for any sign of trouble. That's just a complete fiction.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Let me restate my view that this matter is an internal Wikipedian dispute between those Wikipedians who have prevailed in the formation of the UK chapter and Petey and other Wikipedians/Wikipedian Want To Bees/Unadjusted Wikipedian Used To Bees. That these Petey Bees gather at WR is no reason to favor them in this internal dispute.

These same Petey Bees seem to have discussion of the strength of an appeal against covered to the point of fanboy excess. While there is no reason favor the UK Chapter they do at least have the virtue of not being here to prattle on in their Wikipedian way. So let me point out for discussion purposes avenues of defense the UK Charter might take.

Consider the following from the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc47.aspx (emphasis added).

QUOTE
D2. When doesn't the Commission get involved?

The short answer

We will not get involved in matters which are outside the scope of the Commission's responsibilities. Our powers to intervene are limited by:
  • the extent to which the legal framework governing charities and their regulation allow involvement or intervention by us;
  • the rights of charity trustees to run the charity within the terms of its governing document;
  • whether the issue should properly be dealt with by another regulator or agency;
  • whether our action is a proportionate response to the issues involved; and
    whether our intervention would directly bring about a solution.
These limitations mean that not all complaints will be taken up.

In more detail

In practical terms the limitations on our ability to intervene means we will not take forward complaints:
  • where you disagree with decisions made by the trustees and those decisions have been properly made within the law and the provisions of the charity's governing document;
  • to resolve internal disagreements over a charity's policy or strategy because those involved are responsible for settling the issues themselves;
  • about incidents of poor service from a charity where there is no general risk to its services, its clients or its resources;
  • where the complaint arises from a charity dispute and there are properly appointed trustees whose responsibility it is to deal with the issues reported;
  • where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;
  • where the issue is being dealt with by, or is the responsibility of, another statutory or supervisory body;
  • where there is a disagreement about the terms or delivery of a contract;
  • where legal proceedings are being taken by another party against a charity, including those for the collection of debts, except in a few very rare cases where the Attorney General has specifically asked us to do so.

As a proportionate regulator we only take up issues where we believe that there is substance to a complaint. Therefore, if there is no evidence to support the complaint or allegation we may decide that intervention is not appropriate. We will not act on unsubstantiated allegations, rumour or opinion - to do this and, as a result, disrupt the charity's work would be unfair to that charity, its activities and its users and beneficiaries.



This would seem toe to open the door to evidence that this is nothing but an internal dispute in which the Petey Bees are disgruntled banned editors. Wikipedians just love to obsessively pursue this kind of thing and the wiki documents it in such painful detail. Discussion of sock-puppeting, ban evasion, breaching experiments and all the attendant over-heated hyperbole might go a long way to undermine the preachy and self righteous "I could do it betterism" of the Bees.

Of course a little of this sort of thing goes a long way and the general notion of lack of standing and interloping could be undermined by too much of this stuff. Still it is good to keep in mind that both sides get to get their licks in after they get tired of phoney civility and strained transparency.

Maybe the Wikipedians could just "solve this amicably" and let the Petey Bees go back home. Maybe they could take Ottava with them too.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 2:57pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th December 2011, 9:27am) *

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

I understand that most of my objections were minor. I suppose the one that is "worst" is that notion that more than a hundred thousand registered users are dutifully monitoring their watchlists for any sign of trouble. That's just a complete fiction.

That's the core of the issue - everything about sound policies is complete fiction - the whole scam that there is proper control. It seems more by accident that Wikipedia is more useful than some of the critics hope it is than by rigourous application of policy.

There would probably be more traction over the gratuitous and staunchly defended pornographic bias of the project (which would be shown to be supporting a project that is working against the public interest) than poking on the basis of plausible but ultimately dysfunctional editorial controls.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th December 2011, 3:16pm) *

Let me restate my view that this matter is an internal Wikipedian dispute between those Wikipedians who have prevailed in the formation of the UK chapter and Petey and other Wikipedians/Wikipedian Want To Bees/Unadjusted Wikipedian Used To Bees. That these Petey Bees gather at WR is no reason to favor them in this internal dispute.

These same Petey Bees seem to have discussion of the strength of an appeal against covered to the point of fanboy excess. While there is no reason favor the UK Chapter they do at least have the virtue of not being here to prattle on in their Wikipedian way. So let me point out for discussion purposes avenues of defense the UK Charter might take.

Consider the following from the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc47.aspx (emphasis added).

QUOTE
D2. When doesn't the Commission get involved?

The short answer

We will not get involved in matters which are outside the scope of the Commission's responsibilities. Our powers to intervene are limited by:
  • the extent to which the legal framework governing charities and their regulation allow involvement or intervention by us;
  • the rights of charity trustees to run the charity within the terms of its governing document;
  • whether the issue should properly be dealt with by another regulator or agency;
  • whether our action is a proportionate response to the issues involved; and
    whether our intervention would directly bring about a solution.
These limitations mean that not all complaints will be taken up.

In more detail

In practical terms the limitations on our ability to intervene means we will not take forward complaints:
[list]

[*]where you disagree with decisions made by the trustees and those decisions have been properly made within the law and the provisions of the charity's governing document;
[*]to resolve internal disagreements over a charity's policy or strategy because those involved are responsible for settling the issues themselves;
[*]about incidents of poor service from a charity where there is no general risk to its services, its clients or its resources;
[*]where the complaint arises from a charity dispute and there are properly appointed trustees whose responsibility it is to deal with the issues reported;
[*]where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;
[*]where the issue is being dealt with by, or is the responsibility of, another statutory or supervisory body;
[*]where there is a disagreement about the terms or delivery of a contract;
[*]where legal proceedings are being taken by another party against a charity, including those for the collection of debts, except in a few very rare cases where the Attorney General has specifically asked us to do so.

As a proportionate regulator we only take up issues where we believe that there is substance to a complaint. Therefore, if there is no evidence to support the complaint or allegation we may decide that intervention is not appropriate. We will not act on unsubstantiated allegations, rumour or opinion - to do this and, as a result, disrupt the charity's work would be unfair to that charity, its activities and its users and beneficiaries.



This would seem toe to open the door to evidence that this is nothing but an internal dispute in which the Petey Bees are disgruntled banned editors. Wikipedians just love to obsessively pursue this kind of thing and the wiki documents it in such painful detail. Discussion of sock-puppeting, ban evasion, breaching experiments and all the attendant over-heated hyperbole might go a long way to undermine the preachy and self righteous "I could do it betterism" of the Bees.

Of course a little of this sort of thing goes a long way and the general notion of lack of standing and interloping could be undermined by too much of this stuff. Still it is good to keep in mind that both sides get to get their licks in after they get tired of phoney civility and strained transparency.

Maybe the Wikipedians could just "solve this amicably" and let the Petey Bees go back home. Maybe they could take Ottava with them too.

While that is one interpretation, you should know full well that the issue of Wikipedia that troubles many Reviewers is not the niceties (or nasticies) of internal Wikipedian politics, but the impact that Wikipedia has on the wider world.

For example, I am sure that Jon Awbrey would not characterise the issue of Wikipedia being some internal dispute and I would suggest that my interest in this is not really that Wikipedia is as mad as a box of frogs, but that as a Resource for the Public Good, the readership are excluded from having any influence on the product, and that the policy decisions are often against the public interest on a number of significant issues. The evidence that there cannot be a rational discussion of issues such as child protection, pornography and so on with any frame of reference that relates to the public perception of these issues. While in WikiWorld it may be appropriate to work by their unique viewpoints, when the organisation extracts public money for public good, then that public have a right to have their requirements considered.

So if the issue was simply one of Peter extending a policy dispute into the wider world, then the interpretation you highlight might be appropriate. However, there are issues far wider than petty arguments over interpretation of policy. Even then, is the public interest best served by an encyclopedia whose bureaucracy holds that truth is somehow irrelevant to the producing a work of reference?

Ignoring the encyclopedia, there are still basic questions to ask of the Wikimedia UK organisation and the self-dealing of appointments and the lack of a properly constituted board of trustees which should, to comply with best practice, be seeking trustees from the wider community to ensure that it is managed appropriately rather than by a group of people with narrow interests.

Posted by: thekohser

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:38pm) *

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.


Petey's acknowledgement that he is campaigning against the UK Chapter's charitable status was monstrously stupid and will come back to haunt him.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th December 2011, 7:49pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:38pm) *

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.


Petey's acknowledgement that he is campaigning against the UK Chapter's charitable status was monstrously stupid and will come back to haunt him.

Just are your stupidity will haunt you, although in your case there's a non too subtle reek of dank and decay. Time you bowed out. ~~~~

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 20th December 2011, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th December 2011, 7:49pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:38pm) *

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.


Petey's acknowledgement that he is campaigning against the UK Chapter's charitable status was monstrously stupid and will come back to haunt him.

Just are your stupidity will haunt you, although in your case there's a non too subtle reek of dank and decay. Time you bowed out. ~~~~


Thanks for the page views, both of you!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 4:08pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 20th December 2011, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th December 2011, 7:49pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 20th December 2011, 12:38pm) *

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.


Petey's acknowledgement that he is campaigning against the UK Chapter's charitable status was monstrously stupid and will come back to haunt him.

Just are your stupidity will haunt you, although in your case there's a non too subtle reek of dank and decay. Time you bowed out. ~~~~


Thanks for the page views, both of you!


Maybe someday I'll click on a sponsored link so you can get the Missus something nice.

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 20th December 2011, 3:56pm) *

~~~~


Awe look someone's homesick.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Of all the UKCC's declared responsibilities, this represents the sticking point.

QUOTE
[*]where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;


The point is: the way Wikimedia UK operates DOES represent a serious risk to the charity, its assets and its beneficiaries.

1. The database is wildly out of agreement with what is normally expected of an educational encyclopedia. I proved that with my subject-balance examination.

2. There are probably about 12,000 excessively negative and possibly defamatory BLPs, not to mention the 88,000 BLPs that appear to be edited to be favorable to their subjects. People (including some Wikipedia administrators) openly edit their own BLPs, and often get away with it. I've got examples.

3. There are a LOT of "bad articles". I've already noted some of them. My estimate: roughly 10-15% of Wikipedia's articles (the ones long enough to be "useful", leaving out stubs and very short ones) are incoherent or simply insane. Many of them never get fixed.

4. The English Wikipedia community is dying, thus most likely taking away any ability to repair the bad articles and the negative BLPs. The community, and certain WMF employees, appear to be actively working to cover up the fact that participation is declining. This, while Sue and Jimbo go around warning journalists that it's declining. Comical, and disturbing.

5. Commons contains thousands of photos that, I feel, many parents would prefer their children not have access to (the "porn" and the closeup photos of genitals are only a small part of this). All wide open and accessible to all.

6. As it exists now, the WMF does very little--except fundraise. The primary reason for its existence, the Wikipedia database, is allowed to drift around. Gnomes and crazies are using bots to keep editcounts cranked up, but making articles into hash in the process. Administrators and content creators are quitting in epic numbers--except for the vandalism patrollers and banhammers.

Didn't Hersfold's election to Arbcom give anyone the hint that Wikipedia is in real trouble? He's one of the worst, most hateful patrollers they have right now. He has no stake in fixing Wikipedia; he has a personal interest in keeping it broken, crazy and vandalized.

I could go on. But this ought to be enough to raise a red flag, at the UKCC and/or elsewhere.

(GBG, is someone paying you to disrupt this thread?)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 20th December 2011, 4:25pm) *

Of all the UKCC's declared responsibilities, this represents the sticking point.
QUOTE
[*]where the issue reported does not pose a serious risk to the charity, its assets or beneficiaries;


The point is: the way Wikimedia UK operates DOES represent a serious risk to the charity, its assets and its beneficiaries.

1. The database is wildly out of agreement with what is normally expected of an educational encyclopedia. I proved that with my subject-balance examination.

2. There are probably about 12,000 excessively negative and possibly defamatory BLPs, not to mention the 88,000 BLPs that appear to be edited to be favorable to their subjects. People (including some Wikipedia administrators) openly edit their own BLPs, and often get away with it. I've got examples.

3. There are a LOT of "bad articles". I've already noted some of them. My estimate: roughly 10-15% of Wikipedia's articles (the ones long enough to be "useful", leaving out stubs and very short ones) are incoherent or simply insane. Many of them never get fixed.

4. The English Wikipedia community is dying, thus most likely taking away any ability to repair the bad articles and the negative BLPs. The community, and certain WMF employees, appear to be actively working to cover up the fact that participation is declining. This, while Sue and Jimbo go around warning journalists that it's declining. Comical, and disturbing.

5. Commons contains thousands of photos that, I feel, many parents would prefer their children not have access to (the "porn" and the closeup photos of genitals are only a small part of this). All wide open and accessible to all.

6. As it exists now, the WMF does very little--except fundraise. The primary reason for its existence, the Wikipedia database, is allowed to drift around. Gnomes and crazies are using bots to keep editcounts cranked up, but making articles into hash in the process. Administrators and co ntent creators are quitting in epic numbers--except for the vandalism patrollers and banhammers.

Didn't Hersfold's election to Arbcom give anyone the hint that Wikipedia is in real trouble? He's one of the worst, most hateful patrollers they have right now. He has no stake in fixing Wikipedia; he has a personal interest in keeping it broken, crazy and vandalized.

I could go on. But this ought to be enough to raise a red flag, at the UKCC and/or elsewhere.

(GBG, is someone paying you to disrupt this thread?)


I wonder how many idiosyncratic and quirky essays will show up at the CC from this thread's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=35640&view=findpost&p=291093 And believe-me-you they couldn't pay the poor son-of-bitch that has to read read them enough...any more than my handlers could pay me enough.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE
Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia

Sorry if this point has already been made, but isn't the onus on Wikimedia UK to demonstrate that it as an organisation is doing anything to control and monitor the content of Wikipedia? Even if (which is easy to disprove) they were an organising body co-ordinating the actions of all or even most of the editors in the UK, that's too small a proportion of WP editors and admins to be that influential.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 20th December 2011, 10:59pm) *

QUOTE
Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia

Sorry if this point has already been made, but isn't the onus on Wikimedia UK to demonstrate that it as an organisation is doing anything to control and monitor the content of Wikipedia? Even if (which is easy to disprove) they were an organising body co-ordinating the actions of all or even most of the editors in the UK, that's too small a proportion of WP editors and admins to be that influential.


Yup, they conned the charity commission. Their charitable status needs to be rescinded.

Posted by: lonza leggiera

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st December 2011, 1:06am) *

QUOTE
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? ...

No, "Wiki UK" is the officially registered name of the company as it appears on their certificate of association, and as they refer to themselves throughout both their original, and http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association, articles of association. If you do a search on the http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ for information about any company called "Wikimedia UK", as I tried to do some time ago, you'll find there's no company registered under that name.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 20th December 2011, 11:11pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 20th December 2011, 10:59pm) *

QUOTE
Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia

Sorry if this point has already been made, but isn't the onus on Wikimedia UK to demonstrate that it as an organisation is doing anything to control and monitor the content of Wikipedia? Even if (which is easy to disprove) they were an organising body co-ordinating the actions of all or even most of the editors in the UK, that's too small a proportion of WP editors and admins to be that influential.


Yup, they conned the charity commission. Their charitable status needs to be rescinded.

I point out that, contrary to the press report, the FOI request clarifies that is NOT a claim they made.

Posted by: lonza leggiera

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st December 2011, 4:38am) *

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-stonewalling-effort-to-see-documents that Wikimedia UK seems to be hiding from the public their communications with the UK Charity Commission, and that can't look good for them.

On reading through the mainstream media's coverage, I was struck by the following, which appears likely to be a misstatement (or possibly a transcription error):
QUOTE(Edward Buckner @ as quoted by Gregory Kohs)

The constant fighting with people whose ignorance is in inverse proportion to their arrogance is so off-putting that it drives the more knowledgeable people from the project.

Surely what Dr Buckner meant to say must have been " ... people whose ignorance is in direct [not "inverse"] proportion to their arrogance ... ", or maybe " ... people whose knowledge is in inverse proportion to their arrogance ... ".

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Wed 21st December 2011, 12:23am) *

Surely what Dr Buckner meant to say must have been " ... people whose ignorance is in direct [not "inverse"] proportion to their arrogance ... ", or maybe " ... people whose knowledge is in inverse proportion to their arrogance ... ".


You are certainly correct. I will make the change, out of respect to Dr. Buckner.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st December 2011, 9:42am) *

QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Wed 21st December 2011, 12:23am) *

Surely what Dr Buckner meant to say must have been " ... people whose ignorance is in direct [not "inverse"] proportion to their arrogance ... ", or maybe " ... people whose knowledge is in inverse proportion to their arrogance ... ".


You are certainly correct. I will make the change, out of respect to Dr. Buckner.


I'm not one of you Main Stream Journalists but shouldn't a quote reflect what was said? Unless of course the interview was just sort of "imagined by permission" it seem Dr. Buckner should be a little bit more involved in the correction process than imposed "out of respect."

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I remember some time ago reading an article maybe on The Inquirer, maybe by AO, just after the UK Chapter got turned down for charitable status. This article linked a brief decision which in turned relied heavily on the "Shaw case." I remember this because the "Shaw" was G. B. Shaw. It involved a testamentary trust in which GBS had set up to promote an alternative alphabet. This was held to lack sufficient "educational" activity to amount to a charitable purpose. The trust it seemed relied on general promotion of the idea of the alphabet but did little or nothing to actually teach it to anyone.

This impressed me as requiring much more by way of "education" than in US law in which promoting the idea of such an alphabet probably would work just fine. I haven't since heard anything about how the UK Chapter got past this issue in its appeal. This is also very different than the "show how you get good articles" standard that Petey seems to assert as the UK Chapters burden in the appeal which he now plans to attack. Are both issues now on the table?

I have raised previously the irony that if WP is a "learning community" that it seems to lack any learners and amounts to a bunch of Prima Donnas, tinkering on whatever vanity of the moment strikes their fancy. I didn't expect this to be revisited considering the charitable status of a chapter.

It strikes me now that this is the same article Petey referenced in his first post. I couldn't recognize it with all of his "public utility" and Romilly stuff which has nothing to do with Shaw.

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th December 2011, 7:26pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 20th December 2011, 11:11pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 20th December 2011, 10:59pm) *

QUOTE
Burchfield said that in order to be registered, Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia

Sorry if this point has already been made, but isn't the onus on Wikimedia UK to demonstrate that it as an organisation is doing anything to control and monitor the content of Wikipedia? Even if (which is easy to disprove) they were an organising body co-ordinating the actions of all or even most of the editors in the UK, that's too small a proportion of WP editors and admins to be that influential.


Yup, they conned the charity commission. Their charitable status needs to be rescinded.

I point out that, contrary to the press report, the FOI request clarifies that is NOT a claim they made.


DB: Are you saying this public utility stuff was not the basis for the UK Chapter prevailing in the appeal? We really need to see the text of the UK-Chapters appeal and the CC's decision.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 21st December 2011, 9:08pm) *

DB: Are you saying this public utility stuff was not the basis for the UK Chapter prevailing in the appeal? We really need to see the text of the UK-Chapters appeal and the CC's decision.

No, I was simply clarifying that contrary to the press report that the UK Chapter had not claimed that they had any editorial control, and in fact they explicitly deny that they have any editorial control at all.

As I understand it, they are claiming charitable status just for being helpful to Wikipedia, and that they have successfully argued that Wikipedia is a useful resource for the public with appropriate controls.

There are three issues I would take up with the Charities Commission:

- that they have not apparently advised the Wikimedia UK to have a better constituted set of trustees. While the trustees might be capable of running the charity according to its charter, the CC will intervene to direct the trust to have a group of trustees widely drawn from the community, rather than a bunch of mates, due to the obvious issues of lack of proper accountability. For example, the fact that there is not one trustee drawn from outside the Wikipedia community when it is clear that the public benefit of the charity is directed to the readership, not the editors, then there is an imbalance. That is not a matter of complaint, simply an observation to draw to the attention of both Wikimedia UK and the CC. In the first instance, I think the appropriate thing is to formally bring it to the attention of Wikimedia UK, let them do nothing about it, then point out the issue to the CC, and they are likely to make a suggestion. This has happened at other charities I've been involved with and is normal, especially on a substantial charity such as this.

- if Wikimedia UK have explicitly denied responsibility for the production and control of Wikipedia, then surely the only public benefit they are offering are these peripheral activities that produce precious little public good. i.e. if the benefit of Wikimedia UK is Wikipedia and the associated projects, then their ability to influence its production is so small as to be inconsequential, and the justification of public benefit, while possibly applicable to Wikipedia, cannot really be applied to Wikimedia UK. It would be like creating a charity supporting the National Trust where it was justified on the upkeep of old buildings, but actually the only activities were organising trips to evangelise the work of the National Trust. The charity is supposed to generate £1m per annum, but where is the value for money that you could say that there was even £10,000 of benefit created in Wikipedia.

- The more difficult issue is to show that the superficial presentation of public benefit is undermined by the distorted philosophy of Wikipedian group think, that there is a continuous distortion to the extent that the encyclopedia is not acting in the long term UK public interest, partly due to its monopolistic domination of information on the Internet. Also this is partly due to their failure to abide by the norms of UK society and law (for example, we can show that they vociferously refuse to abide by the UK standards of child protection, pornography, and copyright and have sought to do harm to British institutions). This is easier to deal with in the context of the UK chapter where we need not bother ourselves with the extremist freedom cult of America where any oddball behaviour is tolerated and justified and any harm is magically discounted under some logic that in the long term good must prevail.

So, my argument would be that the case for public utility supporting a UK charity must be measured under a UK perspective. While Wikipedia might believe it has an appropriate set of guidelines, it should be possible to show that there are many measures where Wikipedia fails to act according to UK law, and that when this has been brought to their attention, the response is a big "fuck you", Wikipedia is more important than the communities it is supposed to serve.

I think that the examples required to demonstrate this include:

- the pornography debate, where there have been some panicked knee-jerk reactions, but the masses have fought for uncensored pornographic content, some of it unlawful in the UK, and failed to institute the most basic of controls. The failure of the WMF to bring this under control.

- the acceptance of copyright material from the UK obtained by nefarious means under the justification that American copyright law permits such use.

- More nuanced arguments on the cultish view on policy (Verifiability not Truth) and the way that a limited number of people hold sway and do not allow proper control of policy by the people it is supposedly providing the service to. If Wikipedia was a country, the USA would have passed a few thousand resolutions and George Bush would have invaded by now. The editors should have very little control over policy, the people who should be defining policy is the readership, and in this context, the UK readership.

While I am being deliberately provocative with regards to the US culture comments, it is important to understand that this is a UK charity, and UK standards apply. While the WMF is cocooned by some odd American legislation, it is handy to remember that the UK chapter is an English company and charity governed by English law, and they might be more susceptible to arguments of mal-administration inthe context of seeking UK benefits.

Posted by: Ottava

Anyone notice that Fae has been on a one man crusade to save teh pornz on Commons lately? I guess once he got his own speedy deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3APeyronie%27s_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=64212515&oldid=64187615) he has gone bonkers putting up all sorts of bad understanding of policy to try and keep as much stuff as possible.

He is still connected to WMUK, right? Would the Charity Commission like to see what the WMUK really considers "educational"? He also thinks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#POLA_should_not_be_Commons_policy is part of our mission. I wonder what the CC would think.

Posted by: Retrospect

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 12:44pm) *

Anyone notice that Fae has been on a one man crusade to save teh pornz on Commons lately? I guess once he got his own speedy deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3APeyronie%27s_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=64212515&oldid=64187615) he has gone bonkers putting up all sorts of bad understanding of policy to try and keep as much stuff as possible.

He is still connected to WMUK, right? Would the Charity Commission like to see what the WMUK really considers "educational"? He also thinks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#POLA_should_not_be_Commons_policy is part of our mission. I wonder what the CC would think.

Commons is an irrelevance. As I understand it, the Wiki UK claim is based solely on their work for Wikipedia, and indeed English Wikipedia. So dragging in Comons is an irrelavance. It's a good argument but alas unusible.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 8:11am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 12:44pm) *

Anyone notice that Fae has been on a one man crusade to save teh pornz on Commons lately? I guess once he got his own speedy deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3APeyronie%27s_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=64212515&oldid=64187615) he has gone bonkers putting up all sorts of bad understanding of policy to try and keep as much stuff as possible.

He is still connected to WMUK, right? Would the Charity Commission like to see what the WMUK really considers "educational"? He also thinks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#POLA_should_not_be_Commons_policy is part of our mission. I wonder what the CC would think.

Commons is an irrelevance. As I understand it, the Wiki UK claim is based solely on their work for Wikipedia, and indeed English Wikipedia. So dragging in Comons is an irrelavance. It's a good argument but alas unusible.

Not to mention that that link doesn't actually show what Ottava says it shows. dry.gif

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 1:11pm) *

Commons is an irrelevance. As I understand it, the Wiki UK claim is based solely on their work for Wikipedia, and indeed English Wikipedia. So dragging in Comons is an irrelavance. It's a good argument but alas unusible.


It is highly relevant if a group that is tasked with educating children is headed up by someone with a interest in naked children and the uploading of porn to a sister project.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 1:11pm) *

Commons is an irrelevance. As I understand it, the Wiki UK claim is based solely on their work for Wikipedia, and indeed English Wikipedia. So dragging in Comons is an irrelavance. It's a good argument but alas unusible.

I don't think it is. The fundamental issue is "Are Wiki UK on balance working for the public good." As their money goes into a pot where there is no control, all they can claim is that their support for WMF is creating a work of public benefit in the UK. They cannot claim they are actively working to reduce inappropriate UK content when they have no control.

However, if you can show that this work:

- contains illegal pornography,
- inappropriately obtained copyright works
- does not have appropriate controls to ensure that inappropriate information is filtered from children
- the WMF support the use of under-age volunteers in inappropriate roles

then there is at least an argument. The important thing is that this argument is based on UK law, not US law, which in several areas is stricter. So for example, child pornography includes cartoon representations - as child pornographers tried to get around legislation using simulation. I don't think anyone has done a serious review of the contents of the various Wikimedia projects with a view to UK law, they were happy enough to say "Ya boo sucks! We are only ruled by Florida Law so we don't give a shit about your concerns." so I think a review of issues might yield some useful hits. If the Charity Commission were seen to be tolerating an organisation that funded, and supported, criminal activity in the UK, then they would be highly embarrassed. The trick is to come up with a few strong cases, with the evidence that it is an issue that WMF are aware of and have chosen not to intervene. With Jimbo's half-hearted efforts, they are quite exposed as they have fiddled around the edges, acknowledging the issues, but have been entirely ineffective about dealing with it. Eric should have some good evidence, it is just a question of looking at it with a fresh eye.

A simple example is that Wikipedia quite happily is used as a means of breaking UK injunctions, often about information which is supposed to be withheld to ensure a fair trial. There was a scandal to do with homosexual rape involving the Royal Family which turned out, IIRC, to be a case of blackmail. While the information was supposed to be withheld from the public domain, Wikipedia published it. This broke two ethical boundaries - allowing the justice system to ensure a fair trial and the publication of private information of unknown validity to the sole benefit of titillating the readership, disguised as some righteous information must be free regardless of the harm its publication might be doing. No criminal charges were brought in regards to the alleged rape, so whether no public benefit was perceived in pursuing the issue or it was without foundation, so we should assume in the first instance that there is no case for the information being given wider circulation.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 8:17am) *

QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 8:11am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 12:44pm) *

Anyone notice that Fae has been on a one man crusade to save teh pornz on Commons lately? I guess once he got his own speedy deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3APeyronie%27s_disease_shown_in_flaccid_penis.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=64212515&oldid=64187615) he has gone bonkers putting up all sorts of bad understanding of policy to try and keep as much stuff as possible.

He is still connected to WMUK, right? Would the Charity Commission like to see what the WMUK really considers "educational"? He also thinks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#POLA_should_not_be_Commons_policy is part of our mission. I wonder what the CC would think.

Commons is an irrelevance. As I understand it, the Wiki UK claim is based solely on their work for Wikipedia, and indeed English Wikipedia. So dragging in Comons is an irrelavance. It's a good argument but alas unusible.

Not to mention that that link doesn't actually show what Ottava says it shows. dry.gif



Did you bother to read what the POLA discussion is about? The policy would prevent having categories such as "tooth brush" be filled with people inserting toothbrushes into their body. That is 100% misleading categories and it has already shocked children as ChaseMe has pointed out via OTRS complaints.



Dogbiscuit

QUOTE
does not have appropriate controls to ensure that inappropriate information is filtered from children


I think the WMUK person fighting against POLA and trying to keep as much porn as possible is the WMUK doing the exact opposite of implementing controls to ensure inappropriate information is filtered from children. Instead, there are many times where they agree with the stance that to filter the information is censorship and would go against the CC in that.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I have now restricted myself to answering the relatively simple question of who sent an email on 26 September 2011 to the UK Charity Commission. Even that is deemed too confidential by the UK Wikimedians, who delete it as 'speculative allegation' http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=17481&oldid=17480

Just wait until we get to the really interesting stuff.

Posted by: Peter Damian

A further question also removed http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=17488&oldid=17485 with the comment 'Trolling'. Guys, you are in the real world now, not on a shitty website that you control. My tax money is now going to help your crappy project. I am raising some serious issues as a responsible UK taxpayer and citizen, and not as a member of your crappy community. This is a different community, mate. Don't call public scrutiny and due diligence 'trolling'.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:28pm) *

A further question also removed http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=17488&oldid=17485 with the comment 'Trolling'. Guys, you are in the real world now, not on a shitty website that you control. My tax money is now going to help your crappy project. I am raising some serious issues as a responsible UK taxpayer and citizen, and not as a member of your crappy community. This is a different community, mate. Don't call public scrutiny and due diligence 'trolling'.

Perhaps they should be reminded that such responses can be part of the evidence of responsible management.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 26th December 2011, 11:28am) *

My tax money is now going to help your crappy project.

That's not exactly true, is it?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:20am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 26th December 2011, 11:28am) *

My tax money is now going to help your crappy project.

That's not exactly true, is it?

Depends how pedantic you want to be, but for our viewers outside the UK, what happens is that if an individual making a donation fills in the right information, the charity can reclaim the income tax paid on the money. If Wiki UK take £1million, they could reclaim £200,000 in gift aid at basic rate. While this may not be Pete's as he has not donated, in reality it comes out of the general pot of government funds. As no Wikipedians have ever been found to be in gainful employment, and yet they will be ticking that gift aid box, Pete will be paying twice over, in social security, and fraudulent gift aid donations smile.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 27th December 2011, 8:54am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:20am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 26th December 2011, 11:28am) *

My tax money is now going to help your crappy project.

That's not exactly true, is it?

Depends how pedantic you want to be, but for our viewers outside the UK, what happens is that if an individual making a donation fills in the right information, the charity can reclaim the income tax paid on the money. If Wiki UK take £1million, they could reclaim £200,000 in gift aid at basic rate. While this may not be Pete's as he has not donated, in reality it comes out of the general pot of government funds. As no Wikipedians have ever been found to be in gainful employment, and yet they will be ticking that gift aid box, Pete will be paying twice over, in social security, and fraudulent gift aid donations smile.gif


That is exactly right. Their income is augmented by the extra 'gift aid' bit which all comes out of the pot. This is the pot that is already under much strain at the moment, and which is funding education (I mean proper education), hospitals, roads etc. A bit of that pot is my money I have contributed to the Treasury.

Posted by: Peter Damian

And the whole discussion now deleted from the original page http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Activity_Plan&diff=17511&oldid=17483 .

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

If you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. Regards, The Land 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contact_us&diff=17517&oldid=17514


I did not say precisely that, but who cares. Blocking is such an easy way to cover up the truth, no?

Posted by: Peter Damian

And now I am blocked

QUOTE

"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian


Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:36pm) *

And now I am blocked

QUOTE

"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian



They can't block you from emailing MPs and others:

QUOTE

Hi,

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d13cc7e-2104-11e1-8a43-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1fvwpY2y3

I saw this report and your comments regarding wikipedia. Normally I'd let ignorance of that nature
go by with a wry chuckle but out of respect for your parents I thought I ought to at least give you
a chance to educate yourself about wikipedia.

"If they’re going in and editing Wikipedia that would
be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is
completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody,
it has a democratic function."

If it is open to anybody to edit why shouldn't paid lobbyists edit it? After all many organisations
pay or encourage supporters to edit WP on their behalf.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

In fact the site is rife with opposing supporters and advocates warping articles to suit a particular
agenda. Here is an Islamic bias being uncovered of just one contributor and the extent of the
problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup

which runs across the entire site with some 8000 articles in mathematics, history, medicine,
and philosophy affected.

The Israel Palestine dispute rages across the site even into innocuous looking articles like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus

Another war continues over the usage of the British Isles. What you have is ideological fights across the entire site.

Back to the Middle East and you'll find that the fashion company Façonnable are suing for libel
over claims that they were funding Hezbollah.

http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/internet-defamation-laws/faconnable%E2%80%99s-wikipedia-defamation-case/


Claims by wikipedians that they clean the site up from libels or misrepresentations are false.
Libels can exist on the site for months and years. Take this article which had a picture of Pamela
Anderson added in December 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_%28slang%29&oldid=402103035

and remained there for six months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_%28slang%29&oldid=430039950

despite at least two of the sites administrators and a member of their arbitration committee
editing the page, during that period. Although to be fair, one of them was only adding categories
in order to better embarrass some American politician, by increasing its Google rating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

Last year people were told that they were going to introduce pre-screening of edits, but that
proposal was rejected:

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


The site is mainly edited by 15-25 year old males, with a penchant for Ayn Rand Libertarianism
along with a mixture of Austrian School of economics, which few understand. This leads to some
interesting outcomes, like the discussions to allow a 13yo to edit the pornography pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&oldid=451754755#Wikiproject_Pornography_and_Minors:_Proposals_and_Discussion


You wouldn't want to search their image site for Queen Victoria's husband:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=prince+albert

or for bell tolling either:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=bell+tolling

Best regards


Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:56pm) *

Claims by wikipedians that they clean the site up from libels or misrepresentations are false.
Libels can exist on the site for months and years. Take this article which had a picture of Pamela
Anderson added in December 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_%28slang%29&oldid=402103035

and remained there for six months:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_%28slang%29&oldid=430039950

despite at least two of the sites administrators and a member of their arbitration committee
editing the page, during that period. Although to be fair, one of them was only adding categories
in order to better embarrass some American politician, by increasing its Google rating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism


Thank you for reminding me of the Pamela Anderson one. Their submission to UKCC, of which I have a private copy, says (section 13.1.14)

QUOTE

defamatory or malicious material added to biographies of living persons (BLPs) cannot now be added to the biography of a living person without either very reliable sourcing or being rapidly removed


so I am particularly interested in ones which occurred after that. The whole case they have made to UKCC is that the Siegenthaler and Taner Akcam incidents happened years ago, and now these things could not possibly occur with the new policies and enhanced controls. I have collected numerous incidents that have happened recently, after the supposed improvements in the control environment, and will be sending details of these to UKCC in my own submission.

Who was the administrator involved with adding the 'Santorum' category?

Posted by: lilburne

Cirt added the categories. Iridescent was in there fixing typos but somehow missed problem with the photo.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:36pm) *

And now I am blocked

QUOTE

"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian



Such allegations, though, http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-directors-continue-to-hide-from-inquiry at the Fourth Estate.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th December 2011, 6:33pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:36pm) *

And now I am blocked

QUOTE

"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian



Such allegations, though, http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-directors-continue-to-hide-from-inquiry at the Fourth Estate.


Thank you Greg, but you might want to add the fact I have now been indefinitely blocked http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APeter+Damian by Keating from WMUK wiki, which I think you missed.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Ah, the wonder of the Internets.

QUOTE

Update:
Medieval history specialist Edward Buckner was then further threatened with censorship, besmirched with an accusation of defamation, then less than two hours later was ultimately blocked from asking any more questions about Wikimedia UK.


Posted by: GlassBeadGame

By obsessing with on-wiki communication and blocks you are making this look like a internal conflict of the type that the CC will not intervene. Maybe it would be better to just let Dogbiscuit handle the whole thing.

Posted by: thekohser

I think the polite thing is to http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Land&diff=17540&oldid=14176 how famous he is now.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 27th December 2011, 7:00pm) *

By obsessing with on-wiki communication and blocks you are making this look like a internal conflict of the type that the CC will not intervene. Maybe it would be better to just let Dogbiscuit handle the whole thing.


The board insisted that I conduct all discussion on the WMUK, against my better judgment.

Posted by: thekohser

Well, would ya look at that... Google News felt that this is a http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22Chris+Keating%22+Wikimedia&oq=%22Chris+Keating%22+Wikimedia.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th December 2011, 2:00pm) *

I think the polite thing is to http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Land&diff=17540&oldid=14176 how famous he is now.

Whoops, that's "http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+end+of+the+land". I suppose Mike Peel will soon delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%27s_End, which also seems to harass "The Land"?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:36pm) *

And now I am blocked
QUOTE
"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian

wow, just exactly how stupid are these people. blocking you is the very worst thing they could do to resolve conflict.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:36pm) *

And now I am blocked

Don't forget to save copies of ALL the discussion you've had with them on WMUK.

Don't leave anything out, so you can shut them up when they (inevitably) start claiming that you were being "disruptive" or "abusive".

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 27th December 2011, 7:22pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:36pm) *

And now I am blocked
QUOTE
"Allegations that the Board are engaging in a "cover up" of "misrepresented evidence to the Charities Commision" are not acceptable here."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian

wow, just exactly how stupid are these people. blocking you is the very worst thing they could do to resolve conflict.


Yup, blocking you was the perfect thing to show that they have something to hide.

Posted by: thekohser

Hey, Ed -- you're http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agenda_3Jan12&curid=2381&diff=17547&oldid=17542 now.

Posted by: lonza leggiera

QUOTE(The mainstream media)

(viz. http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-directors-continue-to-hide-from-inquiry):

... the Wikimedia UK non-profit organization was recently granted "charity" status, even though its constitution says it "has no control over the contents of Wikipedia or any other projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation" ...

Despite this statement's appearing prominently in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Overview of a page labelled "Constitution" on Wiki UK's web site, it does not actually appear anywhere in the actual constitution—namely, the set of official documents listed in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Constitution of the same web page.

But in any case the statement is at least misleading. As an organisation whose board members and employees (or at least some of them) are prominent and prolific contributors to Wikipedia, it is at least capable of exerting strong control over the contents of any article which isn't currently being watched or fought over by other powerful, single-minded cabals of POV-pushers. If it doesn't exert such control in fact, it can only be because it chooses not to do so.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Wed 28th December 2011, 1:43am) *

QUOTE(The mainstream media)

(viz. http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-directors-continue-to-hide-from-inquiry):

... the Wikimedia UK non-profit organization was recently granted "charity" status, even though its constitution says it "has no control over the contents of Wikipedia or any other projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation" ...

Despite this statement's appearing prominently in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Overview of a page labelled "Constitution" on Wiki UK's web site, it does not actually appear anywhere in the actual constitution...

There, I fixed that. Examiner now reads, "...even though an overview of its constitution says..."

My work with Examiner is better than what you'll find in old-line media or in Wikimedia project discussions, because I'm interested in the truth. Rather than "banning" you from criticizing my journalistic content, I promptly respond to reasonable concerns. This is how grown-ups engage one another.

Thanks for noting this.

Posted by: Peter Damian

See below. What is 'taking so much time' is telling me who put together the UkCC September submission.

Bamkin refused to discuss via email and insisted I address my questions via the UKCC wiki. Then another director blocked me, as we know.


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward at Logic Museum
To: Roger Bamkin
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: UK charity commission (3rd email)


I can't address this question on the page you mention because (1) the relevant part of the page has been deleted (2) I have now been blocked, for expressing concerns about the deletion.

Why is this? Do you communicate with other directors of WMUK? Do they communicate with you?

Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Bamkin
To: Edward at Logic Museum
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: UK charity commission (3rd email)


Edward?

I'm sure this of some importance to you. But I am getting a lot of emails and I have suggested that you address this question on the Wikimedia UK website. You have a very experienced Wikipedian giving you a lot of attention. He has now said there is something that a board member would know..... they may if they look it up. I will try and find time - but we are volunteers and I think we are able to set a reasonable time for ourselves and our own work. Please be patient. If this does not get addressed immediately then it will have to wait until someone has time.

regards
Roger

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

I think it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site from both Board members and other volunteers. As you stand by your comments yesterday, I stand by my reaction to them. And just to be clear, I am not "blocking you from asking questions", merely blocking you from using this site to post allegations that we have misled the Charities Commission and are engaging in a cover-up, which seems to continue to be your position. The Land 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Right. Keep on asking the same question again and again, and get a load of bullshit replies. If you do this long enough, they say "it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site".


Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:35pm) *

QUOTE

I think it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site from both Board members and other volunteers. As you stand by your comments yesterday, I stand by my reaction to them. And just to be clear, I am not "blocking you from asking questions", merely blocking you from using this site to post allegations that we have misled the Charities Commission and are engaging in a cover-up, which seems to continue to be your position. The Land 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Right. Keep on asking the same question again and again, and get a load of bullshit replies. If you do this long enough, they say "it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site".

It was a press article that made the suggestion that they had told the CC that they had control over Wikipedia. They have never clarified this. I have clarified this with information I have sought and it shows that they acted correctly with regard to one element of misleading the CC.

Why was it so hard to answer that question, which appears still not to have been answered?

I'll brew up a question or two to ask them in a polite way. If they don't answer in a sensible fashion, then it is easy enough to communicate with the CC again.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:31pm) *


Why was it so hard to answer that question, which appears still not to have been answered?




Probably because lying is second nature and they can never be sure whether they told the truth or not.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 28th December 2011, 6:52pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:31pm) *


Why was it so hard to answer that question, which appears still not to have been answered?

Probably because lying is second nature and they can never be sure whether they told the truth or not.


Bingo.

Damn, Lilburne is good.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th December 2011, 1:33pm) *

Such allegations, though, http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-uk-directors-continue-to-hide-from-inquiry at the Fourth Estate.


I find it interesting that about 3% of all the hits on this particular Examiner story are coming from the domain: http://collab.wikimedia.org

I wonder if some Wikimedia contractors have been told to figure out a way to make the Wikimedia UK cooperate with the press? biggrin.gif

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I've added a comment on their action pages. http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Activity_Plan&diff=prev&oldid=17613

Hopefully it is reasonable enough that it will give them food for thought. The fundamental point which I think that Wiki UK will have missed is that as a Charity Trustee, in the UK you take on an obligation to act in the interest of the Charity, regardless of your private views and opinions. It is a fair bet that Wiki UK have ticked a box to get the application and have not understood that everyone who is a Trustee, which is also the board, have taken on a legal obligation to act as a Trustee of the charity, which means that they are obliged to act in support of the objectives. It seems in 2012, all their actions seem to be paying themselves and organising a few jollies.

This gets interesting when you consider issues such as the image filter, where it becomes obvious that certain organisations like schools would consider some parts of the Wiki empire as entirely inappropriate and therefore, as there is no granularity in the display, they end up having to ban it in its entirety. It is only the general lack of public understanding of what is actually in Wikipedia that allows it to have the access that it has at the moment. Clearly, given that the technology exists and it is within the WMF gift to enforce its use, it becomes an issue that the charity trustees should be obliged to take a forceful position on given their charter. If they do not accept a reasonable definition of public interest, then they need to consider whether they can fulfil their obligations.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I'm very irritated by this. What harassment? What publishing of personal details? And the claim that they cannot 'guarantee the security' of our volunteers implies that they are at risk of some physical attack or similar, no? Is there any legal threat implied in all of this?


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Symonds
To: 'Edward at Logic Museum'
Cc: office@wikimedia.org.uk
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:35 PM
Subject: Wikimedia UK Board Decision

Mr Buckner,

Several respected members of the Wikimedia community – and several members of our charity – have approached us voicing their concerns about your recent activities. Given your past and present conduct, which includes harassing and publishing personal details of Wikimedians, we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if you are permitted to attend our events.

To that end, the Board have banned you from attending any WMUK-run events until further notice. You are, of course, still welcome to communicate with the charity through email and post, and this ban is subject to review in future.

Please direct any queries to info@wikimedia.org.uk in the first instance.

For the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees,

Richard Symonds

Office & Development Manager

Wikimedia UK


Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:04pm) *

I'm very irritated by this. What harassment? What publishing of personal details? And the claim that they cannot 'guarantee the security' of our volunteers implies that they are at risk of some physical attack or similar, no? Is there any legal threat implied in all of this?

Threat? Don't be silly.

However, it could be more honestly worded...

QUOTE

Dear Edward,
You have made it clear that you do not support the Wikipedia project, its goals [as we define them], or its volunteers. And you have a long history of personal conflict with one of our members. And we don't want you hanging out at our meetings and events, especially if you might bring a notebook or camera to document our activities and photograph our members. Therefore, you are no longer welcome at our events."


Or maybe just...
QUOTE

Dear Edward,
Some people in my club think you are mean, so you can't come to our parties.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:33pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:04pm) *

I'm very irritated by this. What harassment? What publishing of personal details? And the claim that they cannot 'guarantee the security' of our volunteers implies that they are at risk of some physical attack or similar, no? Is there any legal threat implied in all of this?

Threat? Don't be silly.

However, it could be more honestly worded...

QUOTE

Dear Edward,
You have made it clear that you do not support the Wikipedia project, its goals [as we define them], or its volunteers. And you have a long history of personal conflict with one of our members. And we don't want you hanging out at our meetings and events, especially if you might bring a notebook or camera to document our activities and photograph our members. Therefore, you are no longer welcome at our events."


Or maybe just...
QUOTE

Dear Edward,
Some people in my club think you are mean, so you can't come to our parties.



That's all very well as a joke, but they make me feel like a common criminal. I'm really not very happy with that. As for photos, I asked everyone at the last event if they minded pictures, and even got this reply from the same person who just announces my banning.

QUOTE

More pictures please, Peter! :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=62615901&oldid=39855271

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

I'm very irritated by this. What harassment? What publishing of personal details? And the claim that they cannot 'guarantee the security' of our volunteers implies that they are at risk of some physical attack or similar, no? Is there any legal threat implied in all of this?


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Symonds
To: 'Edward at Logic Museum'
Cc: office@wikimedia.org.uk
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:35 PM
Subject: Wikimedia UK Board Decision

Mr Buckner,

Several respected members of the Wikimedia community – and several members of our charity – have approached us voicing their concerns about your recent activities. Given your past and present conduct, which includes harassing and publishing personal details of Wikimedians, we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if you are permitted to attend our events.

To that end, the Board have banned you from attending any WMUK-run events until further notice. You are, of course, still welcome to communicate with the charity through email and post, and this ban is subject to review in future.

Please direct any queries to info@wikimedia.org.uk in the first instance.

For the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees,

Richard Symonds

Office & Development Manager

Wikimedia UK



What did you expect, Petey-Bee?

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:36pm) *

That's all very well as a joke, but they make me feel like a common criminal. I'm really not very happy with that. As for photos, I asked everyone at the last event if they minded pictures, and even got this reply from the same person who just announces my banning.

I didn't mean it as a joke. There are evidently enough people in Wikimedia UK who object to your particular form of advocacy that Richard felt it was necessary to disinvite you (regardless of his personal feelings, whatever they may be).

It may also be, and I tried to hint at this in my first revision, that someone looked at your efforts to get their charity status revoked and suggested that such a person might do harm to the "cause" if present at their events (perhaps by honestly reporting dubious activities, or by selective reporting of harmless activities and taking things out of context). Therefore, best not to invite at all.

It kind of reminds me of an incident in which a reporter attended a political fundraiser, and was told by his hosts that the real guests (big important money people) didn't want to be bothered with a reporter asking questions and taking pictures, so they made him wait in a closet for several hours until the designated period for photos and carefully crafted sound bites.

Essentially, someone thinks you're more trouble than you're worth. Either Chase Me thinks so, or people he thinks he has to answer to think so.

You might even see this as a badge of honor.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:55pm) *

Either Chase Me thinks so, or people he thinks he has to answer to think so.

Or (he said, speculating wildly) FT2 called him on the phone and talked his ear off for 2 hours and wouldn't let him go until he agreed to ban you. When FT2 called me about you, I was about ready to gnaw my own leg off to get away, and I was on a different continent.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Mon 9th January 2012, 3:55pm) *

It kind of reminds me of an incident in which a reporter attended a political fundraiser, and was told by his hosts that the real guests (big important money people) didn't want to be bothered with a reporter asking questions and taking pictures, so they made him wait in a closet for several hours until the designated 20 minute period for photos and carefully crafted sound bites.


Are you suggesting that Peter Damian might be on the receiving end of a new http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaca_%28term%29#2006_Virginia_Senate_race?



Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 9th January 2012, 9:03pm) *

Are you suggesting that Peter Damian might be on the receiving end of a new Macaca moment?

Sorry, I don't get the reference. The story of the reporter who was forced to hide in a closet is http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=reporter%20forced%20to%20wait%20in%20closet&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F03%2Fbiden-team-apologizes-to-reporter-for-sticking-him-in-closet%2F&ei=FVgLT8qOKMjv0gH_hcyGAg&usg=AFQjCNEetidDdHaw8pNzFkiWtKb9-HKYUg. It's probably a bad comparison anyway.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:36pm) *


That's all very well as a joke, but they make me feel like a common criminal.


Well at least you won't run the risk of being cavity searched on leaving. Given wikipedians past activities with museum property it would be prudent for any organisation to fist frisk them on leaving - BTW is Fae going?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

Thomas Dalton, not a board member any more, has suggested this on the Wikimediauk-l list:

QUOTE

As mentioned, he has a history of "outing" people. I imagine it is in that sense that he is considered a security risk (I've not discussed this decision with anyone on the board, so I'm just speculating based on what I know of the board). Some people like to keep their real life identities secret and that is a little difficult when meeting peoplein person. You need to be able to trust the people you are meeting.


It would have been nice if the official communication could have been clearer.


Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:04pm) *

I'm very irritated by this. What harassment? What publishing of personal details? And the claim that they cannot 'guarantee the security' of our volunteers implies that they are at risk of some physical attack or similar, no? Is there any legal threat implied in all of this?


QUOTE

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Symonds
To: 'Edward at Logic Museum'
Cc: office@wikimedia.org.uk
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:35 PM
Subject: Wikimedia UK Board Decision

Mr Buckner,

Several respected members of the Wikimedia community – and several members of our charity – have approached us voicing their concerns about your recent activities. Given your past and present conduct, which includes harassing and publishing personal details of Wikimedians, we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if you are permitted to attend our events.

To that end, the Board have banned you from attending any WMUK-run events until further notice. You are, of course, still welcome to communicate with the charity through email and post, and this ban is subject to review in future.

Please direct any queries to info@wikimedia.org.uk in the first instance.

For the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees,

Richard Symonds

Office & Development Manager

Wikimedia UK


You can attend any of the meetups as they all appear to take place in public houses. In fact you could always wait outside the pub and photograph them as they go in. That should really piss them off.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:38am) *

Thomas Dalton, not a board member any more, has suggested this on the Wikimediauk-l list:

QUOTE

You need to be able to trust the people you are meeting.


It would have been nice if the official communication could have been clearer.


Properly played one could feed that sort paranoia so that they never meet anyone they don't already know.

Hey Thomas (I know one of you monkeys will be watching) you cannot be part of a public event and keep yourself private. People in public can be photographed and they can have their activities discussed. Most of your BLPs are exactly that. If you don't like it stay in doors.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:30pm) *

Hey Thomas (I know one of you monkeys will be watching) you cannot be part of a public event and keep yourself private. People in public can be photographed and they can have their activities discussed. Most of your BLPs are exactly that. If you don't like it stay in doors.


Hey, Lil... I have a perfect solution for them. They could hold the next Wiki UK at a gay bathhouse! That way, only the charity "insiders" will feel entirely at home there, and "puritans" like Damian will feel compelled to stay outside.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th January 2012, 6:23am) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:30pm) *

Hey Thomas (I know one of you monkeys will be watching) you cannot be part of a public event and keep yourself private. People in public can be photographed and they can have their activities discussed. Most of your BLPs are exactly that. If you don't like it stay in doors.


Hey, Lil... I have a perfect solution for them. They could hold the next Wiki UK at a gay bathhouse! That way, only the charity "insiders" will feel entirely at home there, and "puritans" like Damian will feel compelled to stay outside.


As they are such delicate flowers, members of the inner sanctum, they could all turn up in a Niqāb.

As Wales said:
QUOTE

Well I don't think you can, I think that those are actually matters of legitimate public interest and so, you know as discomforting as that is to certain people you know the public has a right to know and I think that's very fundamental.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/pmprivacy-wales.shtml


Posted by: Peter Damian

Actively being discussed on Wiki-uk. Discussion archived here http://www.webcitation.org/64aCtvlEF .

This one, from Symonds, who happily accepted the pint of beer I bought him in November http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006985.html is bordering on libellous. Symonds also asked me the other day if I could post more photos from the set I took in November (where I politely asked if I could take photos). I replied saying I only posted ones of sufficient quality. I feel totally betrayed by him, thinking him one of the few decent Wikipedians.

QUOTE

Peter (or anyone else): if you would like to meet me at some point in the
future, I will take you through Buckner's history on-wiki, and the reasons
he was banned from Wikipedia. I will also happily take you through some of
my own experiences of being (incorrectly) outed on Wikipedia Review,
including the real life repercussions on me, my family, and my job.


This one from AGK http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006982.html suggests he was the respected and high-profile Wikipedian who complained. For the record, the post he is probably worried about is here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35989 , where I say "Let's take a look at this new arbitrator. I now know his real name and identity, which are not particularly relevant here. What is relevant is his age". I did not disclose his identity. I think his age is relevant, because it tells us about the culture and attitudes of the people who now run Wikipedia. AGK was the one who ran on a 'transparency' platform.

I was banned in August 2009 for alleging a conflict of interest. I did not disclose the identity of the editor. The ban was subsequently agreed by the Arbitration Committee to be unfair and and abuse of power (although for reasons of embarrassment they did not lift the ban).

It is totally unacceptable to have these things said about me, using my real name, in public, without any right of reply. Someone has just emailed me saying I should contact a solicitor.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

The bizarre thing is that as board members of a limited company and as trustees of a charity they are obliged to have a public face, so there is no outing there. They might be worried about other Wikipedians, but I'd have to say that I can't think of any other hobby group where the de facto position is paranoia about being recognised is the prerequisite to being involved. Perhaps they one day will recognise it is not the behaviour in the real world that is the problem, but the behaviour on Wikipedia. After all, if they are doing things on Wikipedia that they are not prepared to be doing under their own name, then they need to consider what it is that they are doing. Surely, Wikipedians should be proud of their involvement and should be shouting from the rooftops.

This is Wiki-Think, and one of the big issues at Wikipedia is that they have allowed this alternate world view to gain such credence. A handful of big name Wikipedians made a stink some years ago because their dubious on-wiki practices were being challenged and they hid away, and since then privacy has spread like a disease, while they have no concept that the victims of Wikipedia should be accorded any such concern.

Note: As I have said before, although I prefer not to operate under my real name here, it is an issue of not wanting the vague embarrassment of having an interest in Wikipedia associated with my identity on the Internet. I have been outed on WR in the past, I believe the post is still there, and it does not concern me overly.

Posted by: Kevin

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:53am) *

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?

I'm pretty sure not, but it certainly is rare.

It is not the banning that is a problem to me, it is the handling of it, and I'd guess that Peter would feel the same. It is an understandable response to pointed criticism and I would certainly be reluctant to engage with someone with an avowed disruptive aim. However, there are going to be public meetings like the AGM of the charity that should be open, and of course, the defamatory way in which they have dealt with this is additional evidence that Wiki UK are not fit and proper people to manage a charity in the public interest.

To be clear, Peter's case is not about the people involved, it is about the misrepresentation of the effective operation of policies. Essentially, what the Wiki UK submission says is:

You raised the question of speeding on the UK roads which you see as a problem for the success our application. Our response is that we have a law called "Speed Limits" which together with a system of signposting is designed to ensure nobody speeds. We cannot control the law, nor can we ask drivers to abide by them but we have people called policemen who will catch anyone who breaks the law. Therefore there is no speeding on UK roads.


We know that Wikipedians appear to believe that Wikipedia policies are fit for purpose, so the real test is "Do these people really believe that policies work or is there any evidence that they knowingly misrepresented their case to UKCC?"

I hope all other critics of Wikipedia will make the effort to attend and photograph as many attendees as possible. This seems an appropriate response to the closing of an open organisation.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 9th January 2012, 8:28pm) *

You can attend any of the meetups as they all appear to take place in public houses. In fact you could always wait outside the pub and photograph them as they go in. That should really piss them off.

In fact, if they try to get you arrested, you'll finally get some press!

Posted by: dogbiscuit

One of the most ironic things is that there is the suggestion that someone would lose their job if they were outed.

As far as I am aware, in the UK the only person who was outed who lost their job was PoetGuy, who was subjected to a deliberate campaign of personal harassment by Wikipedians, including FT2, the very person that they are referring to with their complaint about Peter (and some WR members too it has to be said) under the justification of his deception on the project.

I find it a most bizarre assertion, and it would need some pretty good justification for me to believe that a person behaving appropriately on Wikipedia and in public life puts his job at risk. I would presume though that what we are talking about is that there are people publishing amusing pictures of their willies and it is then dawning on them that they are bringing themselves into disrepute if they are identified.

Posted by: lilburne

There are a large number of kooks and loons on the internet, so many in fact that I do not disclose my real identity online. I have known people have a dumb online argument then spend days phoning their opponents place of work. So I do believe that privacy/anonymity is important to people that are participating in an online community.

Wikipedia though is not simply an online community. It isn't like having a flame war on USENET or on some other discussion forum. The act of editing wikipedia can directly affect the reputation of others. I'm not so concerned about people arguing over some event in the 12th century Persia, for them they should be able to remain anonymous if they desire. However if one is editing current events, or writing about living people for a top 10 website, especially one that purports to be an encyclopaedia, then one shouldn't be doing so behind a wall of anonymity.


Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 10:58am) *

One of the most ironic things is that there is the suggestion that someone would lose their job if they were outed.

As far as I am aware, in the UK the only person who was outed who lost their job was PoetGuy, who was subjected to a deliberate campaign of personal harassment by Wikipedians, including FT2, the very person that they are referring to with their complaint about Peter (and some WR members too it has to be said) under the justification of his deception on the project.


I’m totally amazed by this for the same reason as you. Symonds says here that I am “An ex-Wikipedia user who was banned from the project for harassing volunteers on and off Wikipedia ”his past and present conduct … includes harassment and publishing personal details of Wikimedians” http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006977.html (Symonds)

I very rarely ‘publish personal details’, and don’t recall harassing anyone ‘off Wikipedia’. I emailed FT2 a couple of times years ago, but I am certain that was in response to an email from him. Symonds says “I will also happily take you through some of my own experiences of being (incorrectly) outed on Wikipedia Review, including the real life repercussions on me, my family, and my job.“ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006985.html, as though his being outed on Wikipedia were connected with me. I looked through a thread about him to which I contributed here and the only relevant bit I could find was here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30421&st=20 where I link to a BBC interview with Symonds, where he openly declares that he writes for Wikipedia and is a member of the Arbitration committee. Get real – you are interviewed with the BBC and appear on the news, and I am outing you because I publish a link to the interview????

I note that here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30421&view=findpost&p=265961 I challenged his claim that the BBC had misrepresented his words. He said “As to the 'Arbcom controls content' and 'top Wikipedia contributor' nonsense that the BBC decided to put up, I had no part in that. You know how the press works,“ to which I responded giving the precise point at the interview (1:01 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483) where he says "The arbitration committee deal with very very top end content disputes"” This seemed like deception, unless he really had forgotten his words in this interview. He also said "I don't like putting pictures of me in a uniform online because my job in the reserves obviously leaves me open to real-life attacks, not to mention stern words from my CO about 'security' and so on and so forth," and yet he posted a picture of himself in uniform http://www.webcitation.org/5vpsye8Ir on his WP user page.

I note as well that for the Wiki meetup of November, Symonds contacted me beforehand, encouraging us to talk about WMUK finances. We chatted amicably, and I bought him a drink. I apologised for questioning the existence of his partner Panyd (who I had previously suspected of being a sock). He laughed this off, and said Panyd would be teasing me about this. I had a smoke with Panyd (Symond’s fiance) outside the pub. I took photos at the meet, but asked if that was OK (I remember Skomorokh specifically asking me not to). I am sensitive to this myself as I don’t like photos of me that exaggerate my age or wrinkles. I published two of them on commons afterwards, following which Symonds emailed me afterwards, asking for more. I replied saying that I only publish pictures that are of high enough quality, or which are reasonable representations of the person. (There was one I didn’t publish of Symonds because it showed him talking to Andreas - JN466 – who was looking very bored, and which I felt did not represent the realities of the situation).

I was also pretty open at the meetup that I was writing a book on Wikipedia.

So, given the amicable nature of relations with Symonds up until December, I feel completely betrayed by his actions here.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:53am) *

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?
No, but it is probably the first time that a person has been thus banned without, at the very least, official allegations of criminal behavior having been previously made. Note that even Wikienemy #1 Gregory Kohs is permitted to attend Wikimedia events.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:53am) *

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?
No, but it is probably the first time that a person has been thus banned without, at the very least, official allegations of criminal behavior having been previously made.


Wrong. The announcement from the WMUK office here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006977.html says that I am “An ex-Wikipedia user who was banned from the project for harassing volunteers on and off Wikipedia and that my ”past and present conduct … includes harassment and publishing personal details of Wikimedians”. Harassment in the UK http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a means 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. It doesn’t matter that I am not guilty of it. That’s what the word means, and that’s what WMUK is accusing me of. So, there is an official allegation of criminal behaviour.

I should probably consult a solicitor. Note the signature on the announcement – “Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827”.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 1:04pm) *

I should probably consult a solicitor. Note the signature on the announcement – “Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827”.


You probably should. Though of course that would be used as something against you if / when you publish the book, or lodge the formal complaint with the CC. "But, but, but Mr B is banned and is suing us for defamation and can't be taken as being impartial, whine, whine, whine."

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 7:04am) *
That’s what the word means, and that’s what WMUK is accusing me of. So, there is an official allegation of criminal behaviour.
By "official" I meant that such allegations had been lodged with the police or other relevant government authority. As far as I know neither WMUK nor any of its minions have filed any police complaints against you.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 7:04am) *
I should probably consult a solicitor.
Indeed.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 1:04pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:53am) *

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?
No, but it is probably the first time that a person has been thus banned without, at the very least, official allegations of criminal behavior having been previously made.


Wrong. The announcement from the WMUK office here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006977.html says that I am “An ex-Wikipedia user who was banned from the project for harassing volunteers on and off Wikipedia and that my ”past and present conduct … includes harassment and publishing personal details of Wikimedians”. Harassment in the UK http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a means 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. It doesn’t matter that I am not guilty of it. That’s what the word means, and that’s what WMUK is accusing me of. So, there is an official allegation of criminal behaviour.

I should probably consult a solicitor. Note the signature on the announcement – “Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827”.

Which is a fine example of my theme, that Wiki UK Ltd is a completely different kettle of fish and are bound by the laws of the UK.

What is interesting about defamation in the UK is that it is up to the accused not only to demonstrate that it is not defamatory, but also that it could not reasonably interpreted as defamatory i.e. there is no defence of "that's not how I meant my words to be interpreted."

The appropriate action of WIki UK Ltd would be to withdraw the post, apologise. It is laughable to think that Peter would be the weak link in people's identity and I am sure that there are a number of people who would be quite interested in playing Spot the Geek at these meet-ups if it will induce such irrational paranoia.

Simple answer to them is that if there are individuals who are so concerned that their identity on Wikipedia must not be associated with their real life identity due to them revealing inappropriate behaviour that would get them sacked, then perhaps it is they who should not be going to public meetings. It is a bizarre idea of having a publicly funded charity which has a duty to the public interest and is subject to public scrutiny putting the paranoia or inappropriate behaviour of individuals above the interests of the charity.

Once Wiki UK Ltd personnel stepped over the line into being a charity, they put upon themselves various duties. One such duty is not allowing personal prejudices to affect the reputation of the charity by taking potentially unlawful actions such as issuing defamatory notices.

Another legal point, if it is defamatory, then it is normally considered unwise repeating the defamation yourself, as you are distributing the injury yourself.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 10:58am) *

One of the most ironic things is that there is the suggestion that someone would lose their job if they were outed.

...

I find it a most bizarre assertion, and it would need some pretty good justification for me to believe that a person behaving appropriately on Wikipedia and in public life puts his job at risk. I would presume though that what we are talking about is that there are people publishing amusing pictures of their willies and it is then dawning on them that they are bringing themselves into disrepute if they are identified.

I am not sure if this is Chase Me speaking the fears of some Wikipedians, or intended as a serious concern. I can think of no plausible reason why anyone's job would be at risk if it were discovered that they edit WP. One can imagine scenarios in which people could be at risk of losing their jobs if it were discovered that they were editing WP while at work instead of doing their job, but short of that, this seems wholly implausible.

Outside of the bare fact that they edit WP, is it possible that one's specific activities on WP will endanger their jobs? Yes, as the Poetlister cases suggests. There are those who may say, well, that wasn't so much the actual edits but the impersonation and identity theft. Those people would be right.

Is it possible that people's jobs would be in jeopardy if, because of their association with WP, they are discussed on WR or elsewhere? Yes. Some of the Wikimedia UK trustees, for example, are consultants. It is entirely possible that prospective employers may Google them and notice the discussions about WP. I imagine that being able to say "I am a trustee of a registered charity" will generally outweigh whatever negative results turn up in a search, but it is not implausible that people may feel that that negative discussion may have an effect on the number of contracts that they receive if that negative information appears at odds with their area of expertise.

The part I find most confusing is where Chase Me refers to the effects that "outing" had on his job, considering he stated at the time that he was unemployed.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:19am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 7:04am) *
That’s what the word means, and that’s what WMUK is accusing me of. So, there is an official allegation of criminal behaviour.
By "official" I meant that such allegations had been lodged with the police or other relevant government authority. As far as I know neither WMUK nor any of its minions have filed any police complaints against you.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 7:04am) *
I should probably consult a solicitor.
Indeed.

He's not a UK lawyer, but maybe our new pal Mr. Godwin might have an opinion! boing.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:53am) *

So does this make the first time that a person has been banned from physical aspects of Wikimedia projects?


Not exactly the same thing, but at one time, I invited a Wikipedia Philadelphia meet-up to gather at my employer's building (the tallest skyscraper between New York and Chicago), about 700 feet above street level in a 20-seat conference room, with 10-foot-high windows, 70-inch LCD display monitor, guest access to a 20 Mbps Internet connection, gourmet coffee, tea, and hot chocolate.

They declined the offer because attendees would have had to submit their real names, 24 hours prior to their intended attendance, and bring their photo ID when checking in at our building. Instead, they chose to meet in a subterranean, window-less room in a student center building at Drexel University (or maybe it was the University of Pennsylvania -- I don't recall), so that attendees wouldn't have to identify themselves to security, and walk-ups could come on a spur-of-the-moment basis.

I ask you -- which venue had the greater chance of a physical stalker coming in and causing trouble?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:43am) *

The part I find most confusing is where Chase Me refers to the effects that "outing" had on his job, considering he stated at the time that he was unemployed.

The geek mafia probably pays under the table.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Another little thought: the post says "we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if if he is permitted to attend our events."


Let's change that to what they meant to say:

"we do not feel that we can guarantee the anonymity of our volunteers if he is permitted to attend our events."

That is a breathtaking assertion in itself:

"We feel we can guarantee the anonymity of our volunteers [who are attending public meetings in public places] by banning a single individual."

Discuss.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32am) *
"We feel we can guarantee the anonymity of our volunteers [who are attending public meetings in public places] by banning a single individual."
Wikipedians also believe that Pandora's Box can be closed. That is, they believe that if you revdelete an embarrassing revelation on the wiki, it really never did exist.

We've long known that Wikipedians have bizarre, irrational beliefs about anonymity. The other thing that I find amusing about all this is the way that Wikipedians believe that unflattering information about one of their own can be disappeared as if it never existed (and once this has happened everyone is required to pretend that it does not exist), but unflattering information about anyone else may, and in fact should, be assiduously collected, catalogued, and published on Wikipedia for the whole world to see.

Another odd trait of Wikipedians in this area is that the mere use of using someone's real name (in lieu of their Wikipedia moniker) is "outing" even if their real name is widely known. It would likely be considered "outing" if you called Richard Symonds "Richard" on the wiki (or in fact in any Wikipedia-related context) instead of "Chase Me", even though everyone knows that Richard is his real name. Now, I can see an argument that calling someone by something other than their preferred form of address is, perhaps, rude, but "outing"? Hardly.

(edited to correct Richard's name)

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:50pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32am) *
"We feel we can guarantee the anonymity of our volunteers [who are attending public meetings in public places] by banning a single individual."
Wikipedians also believe that Pandora's Box can be closed. That is, they believe that if you revdelete an embarrassing revelation on the wiki, it really never did exist.

We've long known that Wikipedians have bizarre, irrational beliefs about anonymity. The other thing that I find amusing about all this is the way that Wikipedians believe that unflattering information about one of their own can be disappeared as if it never existed (and once this has happened everyone is required to pretend that it does not exist), but unflattering information about anyone else may, and in fact should, be assiduously collected, catalogued, and published on Wikipedia for the whole world to see.

Another odd trait of Wikipedians in this area is that the mere use of using someone's real name (in lieu of their Wikipedia moniker) is "outing" even if their real name is widely known. It would likely be considered "outing" if you called Peter Symonds "Peter" on the wiki (or in fact in any Wikipedia-related context) instead of "Chase Me", even though everyone knows that Peter is his real name. Now, I can see an argument that calling someone by something other than their preferred form of address is, perhaps, rude, but "outing"? Hardly.

At risk of being barred from future WMF UK events, I believe you mean Richard, not "Peter".

Posted by: Peter Damian

Charles Matthews talks a bit of sense

QUOTE

It's more than one issue, of course. The whole area of outing editors is "toxic" in the ArbCom-jargon sense: in other words the community of enWP dumps it into the lap of a few trusties, so that _it does not have to be discussed on a public mailing list_, amongst other things. I would question whether anyone who has not thought through the implications should be giving opinions on such a list. If anyone thinks that the "natural justice" issue is trivial, or that barring individuals deemed persona grata actually solves the outing problem rather than driving it to more covert methods, they (frankly) have no idea what they are talking about.


Posted by: thekohser

Michael West also http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/006993.html quite brilliantly:

QUOTE
In terms of WP:COI editors are frequently outed, so are one set of
editors allowed to remain completely anonymous and others not? I've
been part of the project for 8 years and even being part of the email
lists leaves you vulnerable to outside scrutiny.

If the harassment is tangible then bring it to the notice of the
authorities. Otherwise this is the most bizarre communication I have
ever read in a public list.

Posted by: Peter Damian

And again:

QUOTE

Seriously this thing is both worrying and casts the whole WMUK in a
vindictive light. I see no need for a public statement to be issued.
Wikepedians do fall out but why publicize allegations which have never
been reported to outside authorities, either all of you have lost your
minds or spat will escalates in an expensive court case. I'm confused
and flabbergasted.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/007003.html


Michael West is someone, no?

Just read some of the other comments on that list for the proverbial stupidity of Wikipedians to be revealed.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 10th January 2012, 5:42pm) *

And again:

QUOTE

Seriously this thing is both worrying and casts the whole WMUK in a
vindictive light. I see no need for a public statement to be issued.
Wikepedians do fall out but why publicize allegations which have never
been reported to outside authorities, either all of you have lost your
minds or spat will escalates in an expensive court case. I'm confused
and flabbergasted.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/007003.html


Michael West is someone, no?


How did this whole thing get to be about who you get to sit with in a pub? Any response from the actual appeal to the CC?

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE
As someone who does attend real life events and who does edit under a
pseudonym, I'm rather grateful for those who've spoken up and are aware of
this issue.

I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia, so to some of the trolls at WR I
suppose I'm a target for outing.

As an admin I have done quite a bit of trawling userspace for attack pages,
and of the more than five thousand pages I've deleted quite a large
proportion have been attack pages. Not surprisingly I've had quite a bit of
abuse up to and including death threats from the people I've thereby
annoyed.

As a regular at GLAM and other events I'm aware that there is a risk that
at some point I will be "outed" deliberately or by accident, and so I've
switched my focus to other less contentious areas of editing.

But the longer I can putoff the day when someone links my userid and my
real life identity the safer I will feel.

I'm not suggesting that only those who've had death threats via their
Wikipedia account should decide on the risk we as a chapter take about the
outing of fellow editors. But I would appreciate it if people bore that
sort of concern in mind when they contemplated welcoming to our meetings
those who want to out editors.

Regards

WereSpielChequers


WereSpielChequers AKA Jonathan Cardy http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgUserInfo.aspx&UID=404

Posted by: DanMurphy

I can't wait to clear decks at the day job and start writing (and doing a little reporting) on this mess. Apologies to Edward (stinks to be accused of a crime with no evidence against you and little recourse beyond an expensive -- and ultimately pointless -- litigation) but this is great stuff for my purposes. The in-group paranoia and wagon-circling is on full display. I won't even have to use adjectives!

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE

Peter (or anyone else): if you would like to meet me at some point in the
future, I will take you through Buckner's history on-wiki, and the reasons
he was banned from Wikipedia. I will also happily take you through some of
my own experiences of being (incorrectly) outed on Wikipedia Review,
including the real life repercussions on me, my family, and my job.

If he was incorrectly outed, that means that he was identified to the wrong account. All he had to do was announce that it was a mistake, and reveal his real account. Or was he even more ashamed of that one?

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:45am) *

The bizarre thing is that as board members of a limited company and as trustees of a charity they are obliged to have a public face, so there is no outing there.

No, the names of the board are public but not the names of their associated accounts.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=470700963&oldid=470699186

Peter, they censored your concerns.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 10th January 2012, 11:50pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:45am) *

The bizarre thing is that as board members of a limited company and as trustees of a charity they are obliged to have a public face, so there is no outing there.

No, the names of the board are public but not the names of their associated accounts.

Although I understand your point, the problem being described was people being identified at a real life public event as people at a real life public event. Now, as far as I can tell, the trick to not associating your real life identity with your Wikipedian identity is not to tell anyone what that identity is. Peter's evil outing scheme seems to consist of saying "I am the dastardly Peter Damian, scourge of Wikipedia, who are you?" All the subterfuge of Scooby Doo and co.*

I think the problem is that Wikipedians want to tell other Wikipedians what their identity is and then are surprised that this information gets passed around.

The simple solution for Wiki UK Ltd, if they really have a concern about identity abuse, is to have a house rule that nobody is obliged to give their Wikipedia handle. However, as ever logic is not a WikiTrait, so instead they magically expect people over which they have no control not to use information they come across. The reality is that within the WikiWorld, the generally rather anonymous people want their WikiGlory to attach to them, so that they become as exciting as their avatar, so really, really need to be able to share with others how glorious they are. Perhaps what more worries them is that they realise that the reverse can happen. I suspect the greatest sin as a Wikipedian is to reveal that you are ordinary in real life, in a world of chains, piercings, oddly shaped wobbly bits and bald hairy bits and hairy bald bits.

* Perhaps more insightful than I thought as I wrote it because, given the demographics of Wikipedia, the caretaker almost certainly did it. Dratted interfering kids! Bah!

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE
A subset of these editors have resigned because of Buckner/Damian.

I'd like to see a list of those editors.

Isn't it funny, how Wikipedians are so fond of throwing around accusations, yet when you ask them
for PROOF, they usually go silent?

I think this happens for one simple reason: Wikipedia is full of nerdy guys who were bullied in real life.
Now they have control of a major website, where they can be anonymous whilst having real power,
for the first time in their lives. So what do they do? They bully people.


The Internet is for bullies, as well as porn. If you don't believe me, consider the http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocean-marketing-gaming-pr-rep-to-avoid-at-all-cost.
Christoforo, unmasked as a bully and a douchebag, goes around apologizing--but creates sockpuppet
accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc etc. in order to continue to attack his critics.

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

WereSpielChequers AKA Johnathan Cardy http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgUserInfo.aspx&UID=404

Okay, once again: got proof?

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:35am) *

QUOTE
A subset of these editors have resigned because of Buckner/Damian.

I'd like to see a list of those editors.

Isn't it funny, how Wikipedians are so fond of throwing around accusations, yet when you ask them
for PROOF, they usually go silent?

I think this happens for one simple reason: Wikipedia is full of nerdy guys who were bullied in real life.
Now they have control of a major website, where they can be anonymous whilst having real power,
for the first time in their lives. So what do they do? They bully people.


The Internet is for bullies, as well as porn. If you don't believe me, consider the http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocean-marketing-gaming-pr-rep-to-avoid-at-all-cost.
Christoforo, unmasked as a bully and a douchebag, goes around apologizing--but creates sockpuppet
accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc etc. in order to continue to attack his critics.

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

WereSpielChequers AKA Johnathan Cardy http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgUserInfo.aspx&UID=404

Okay, once again: got proof?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H3bdRgOWPVkJ:web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/lzTKyf6GGv3i5uQ7Gw41+%22WereSpielChequers%22+%2B+Johnathan+Cardy&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk and on this profile http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOqk2gtiagEJ:twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/page/fulwell+%22archaeologist%22+%2B+Hampton+hill&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk he just happens to have done archaeological digs in exactly the same two countries as listed on WereSpielChequers User page.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 4:51pm) *

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H3bdRgOWPVkJ:web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/lzTKyf6GGv3i5uQ7Gw41+%22WereSpielChequers%22+%2B+Johnathan+Cardy&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk and on this profile http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOqk2gtiagEJ:twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/page/fulwell+%22archaeologist%22+%2B+Hampton+hill&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk he just happens to have done archaeological digs in exactly the same two countries as listed on WereSpielChequers User page.

biggrin.gif applause.gif Now I wonder if his constituents would mind that their councillor is also
one of the most robotic gnomes on Wikipedia. 12 hours a day, routinely.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:00am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 4:51pm) *

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H3bdRgOWPVkJ:web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/lzTKyf6GGv3i5uQ7Gw41+%22WereSpielChequers%22+%2B+Johnathan+Cardy&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk and on this profile http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOqk2gtiagEJ:twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/page/fulwell+%22archaeologist%22+%2B+Hampton+hill&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk he just happens to have done archaeological digs in exactly the same two countries as listed on WereSpielChequers User page.

biggrin.gif applause.gif Now I wonder if his constituents would mind that their councillor is also
one of the most robotic gnomes on Wikipedia. 12 hours a day, routinely.


QUOTE
On becoming a Councillor you will be provided with a computer or laptop (your choice) for your home, paid for Internet access and in most cases an additional telephone line. You will be using email, the Internet and Microsoft Office packages. Full IT training will be given and tailored to suit your needs.


Above quote taken from council's http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/councillors/becoming_a_councillor.htm

No mention of Wikipedia http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx&UID=404&HID=478&HPID=0

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:30am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:00am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 4:51pm) *

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H3bdRgOWPVkJ:web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/lzTKyf6GGv3i5uQ7Gw41+%22WereSpielChequers%22+%2B+Johnathan+Cardy&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk and on this profile http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MOqk2gtiagEJ:twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/page/fulwell+%22archaeologist%22+%2B+Hampton+hill&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk he just happens to have done archaeological digs in exactly the same two countries as listed on WereSpielChequers User page.

biggrin.gif applause.gif Now I wonder if his constituents would mind that their councillor is also
one of the most robotic gnomes on Wikipedia. 12 hours a day, routinely.


QUOTE
On becoming a Councillor you will be provided with a computer or laptop (your choice) for your home, paid for Internet access and in most cases an additional telephone line. You will be using email, the Internet and Microsoft Office packages. Full IT training will be given and tailored to suit your needs.


Above quote taken from council's http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/councillors/becoming_a_councillor.htm

No mention of Wikipedia http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx&UID=404&HID=478&HPID=0

Amusingly, a privacy manager (for what looks like a corporate spam organisation to me, the irony).

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 10th January 2012, 6:04pm) *

QUOTE
But the longer I can putoff the day when someone links my userid and my
real life identity the safer I will feel.

WereSpielChequers AKA Jonathan Cardy http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgUserInfo.aspx&UID=404

Presumably he'll be in the witness protection program soon.

(Do the brits have a WPP? How can you have a WPP if you don't have any Dakotas handy for resettlement?)

Posted by: lonza leggiera

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:04am) *

...

I should probably consult a solicitor. ....

A legal threat!! A legal threat!! Ban him!! Ban him!!


Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(DanMurphy @ Tue 10th January 2012, 6:10pm) *
I won't even have to use adjectives!
Well of course not! No need for adjectives in the wikiland of abjectives! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 10th January 2012, 9:44pm) *

Amusingly, a privacy manager (for what looks like a corporate spam organisation to me, the irony).


I'll never forget http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/23/362182/index.htm Acxiom found itself in.


Also... oh, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-January/007005.html.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:35am) *

Although I understand your point, the problem being described was people being identified at a real life public event as people at a real life public event. Now, as far as I can tell, the trick to not associating your real life identity with your Wikipedian identity is not to tell anyone what that identity is. Peter's evil outing scheme seems to consist of saying "I am the dastardly Peter Damian, scourge of Wikipedia, who are you?" All the subterfuge of Scooby Doo and co.*


An even more evil outing scheme would be to link someone to the list of WMUK board members http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board which clearly identifies which person in RL is identified with which account.

Incidentally the supposed 'outing' of Fae on Commons recently was hardly that at all. Haeften is quite open about the link between his RL identity and user:Fae. No secret at all - see link above. The 'outing' in question was rather a link between public individual and their current, blemish-free Wikipedia account, and an old account that was not free of blemishes at all.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:30am) *


No mention of Wikipedia http://www.richmond.gov.uk/who_are_my_councillors?mgl=mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx&UID=404&HID=478&HPID=0


Obviously he doesn't think that WP has a charitable purpose or that it has a role whose "purposes include the influence of public opinion". Gonna be hard on him if they SOPA strike.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 11th January 2012, 7:21am) *

Incidentally the supposed 'outing' of Fae on Commons recently was hardly that at all. Haeften is quite open about the link between his RL identity and user:Fae. No secret at all - see link above. The 'outing' in question was rather a link between public individual and their current, blemish-free Wikipedia account, and an old account that was not free of blemishes at all.

Oh, really?
QUOTE
Please disengage now
Despite the previous block you've taken again the opportunity to disclose someone's real life identity in a DR request. The problem is that you are not just discussing in WR about this particular case but you are refering to it at Commons in a way which is disrupting and harassing. This has to stop now. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Fæ makes no secret of his real-life identity. He is a Wikimedia UK trustee. If he does not wish for his real name to be mentioned on Commons, I am not aware of that. My block was for mentioning the name of his previous account, and I was quickly unblocked after discussion with the blocking admin. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter to which extent the connection of his real-life identity and his user name is published elsewhere. This does not give you the freedom to post his name or any of his previous accounts here. It was his decision to work as Fæ at Commons and this should be respected by refering to him at this project just as Fæ and not by another name. Please take a look at en:WP:OUTING. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If that is his wish, I will respect it, of course, but I believe that he is quite open here about his identity. Perhaps you should check with him? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for respecting this, Delicious carbuncle. In regard to him being open: Just take a look at his user page. As soon as he discloses his real life identity at that page, you are free to refer to that openly at Commons. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In his request for admin rights, Fæ drew attention to his leadership of GLAM/Task force where his name is prominently displayed. I think that amounts to enough of a self-identification, don't you? Again, I think you should ask him before assuming that I am violating his privacy here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, as long it is not on his user page, his real life identity is not considered to be open at Commons. And even on the RfA page you'll find just a link to it to an external page. Fæ's own thoughts regarding this kind of disclosures were already made crystal clear in a direct response to a comment of yours. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that your extremely strict interpretation would be shared generally and I do not consider it to be a reflection of policy. The diff you offer has to do with linking Fæ to their previous account (this was why I was blocked). As I have pointed out to the blocking admin, that account self-identified both on Commons and on en.WP, although most of those self-identifications have now been rev-deleted. There is no dispute about Fæ's real life identity, he has not asked me to refrain from mentioning it on wiki, and I am not using it for gratuitous reasons. You are free to block me for doing so, of course, but I am getting tired of having to wonder what I am or am not allowed to say here without being threatened with a block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


Posted by: thekohser

I didn't know WR had an "indent" feature!

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 10th January 2012, 10:45pm) *

response from the actual appeal to the CC?


As it was only sent today, that is unlikely. They agree to respond within 15 days. I believe other complaints have been sent.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Finally after some considerable effort, and some pain on my part, including abuse from members of WMUK, banning from their site, and finally banning from any event organised exclusively by WMUK, WMUK have finally published all the details of their correspondence with the UK charity commission http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charity_status/Correspondence . It will repay careful attention, which I will give it over the weekend. Meanwhile, of particular interest will be this section, about controls http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CCR02_2010-05-05_Charity_Commission_reply.pdf&page=3.

This guy was one of the academics who endorsed it http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=165 . Anyone heard of him?

PS if you click on the images themselves, that takes you through to the underlying pdf, which is easier to read.

[edit] However they have restricted any copying of the contents. When I tried to OCR it, I got the message "The author of CCR02_2010-05-05_Charity_Commission_reply.pdf has prohibited copying or otherwise extracting text and graphics from this document. " Long live free content!

Resorting to typing, I see the following:

QUOTE

We note, for instance, that there is a relationship of some sort between WF and a for-profit company, Wikia, owned by the founder of WF. If that feature were to raise the potential for private benefit to a third party the Company would need to be able to illustrate why that (or any other private benefit, for instance private benefit arising from work with individual businesses) is consistent with the public benefit requirements in connection with public benefit principle 2d (see section F12 of Charities and Public Benefit).


Posted by: lilburne

On page 5 the CC question the relationship between WP and wikia. Did they ever explain the 1000s of links from WP to wikia?

EDIT: Ah I see you've picked that up too.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 26th January 2012, 5:59pm) *

On page 5 the CC question the relationship between WP and wikia. Did they ever explain the 1000s of links from WP to wikia?

EDIT: Ah I see you've picked that up too.


And the reply from WMF to that question is here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/uk/1/11/CCR04_2011-07-22_Annex_from_WMF.pdf

QUOTE

Overall, Wikia has made donations to WMF, and there have been some transactions conducted on an arms-length basis between the two organisations, but there has been no 'private benefit' arising whatsoever

Phew that's OK then.

There is also this
QUOTE
Rent paid to Wikia, inc. for the years ended June 30 2010 and 2009 respectively, totalled $14,800 and 13,470. After October 2009 there is no financial relationship between the two organisations.


Greg Kohs has a bit about that here http://wikipediareview.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia#Your_donation_will_indirectly_fund_Wikia.2C_Inc..2C_which_is_not_a_charity , in which he links to an interesting email from Moeller here


QUOTE

Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
>2009/1/23 David Levy
> To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
No, and we didn't ask them to. We obtained about a dozen bids, ranging
from about $150 to $565 per person/month. Obviously all those spaces
had different characteristics. Wikia was in the running because it
had desirable characteristics from the start (high proximity, shared
kitchen access, shared speakerphone use, shared Internet connection,
etc.). We used averaging as a way to arrive at a fair market rate to
neither advantage nor disadvantage Wikia when suggesting a rate. The
averaging also resulted in a rate that was roughly equivalent to the
most comparable space in the running.

Wikia, too, looked at different potential tenants for the space. The
final rate we negotiated was slightly higher than the most comparable
option we looked at (and considered very seriously, including a site
visit). However, the relative advantages of the Wikia space
compensated for that. We were quite careful not to draw any special
advantages from our relationship to Wikia, and Wikia was careful to
treat us in our negotiations like any other tenant. While we're likely
to work with them on technical aspects of the projects, we were also
careful to keep that completely separate.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049360.html

Posted by: SB_Johnny

What's the latest on this effort, Peter?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 8th February 2012, 2:07pm) *

What's the latest on this effort, Peter?


They sent a curious and illogical rejection, which I have challenged. The rejection was illogical in that they said (a) the charity commission does require controls, and yet in the next sentence (b) that it does not require controls. I have written back asking which of these they want to uphold, since their reply violates logic in its present form. There is a two step escalation process.

In connexion with this, I met with Andreas Kolbe (another Wikipedia editor) at the House of Commons with two representatives of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, one of whom agreed to follow up with the Commission if that process failed. We also made a formal submission to the Committee before it closed last week. I don’t want to release too much about what was discussed as this is still ongoing. I will say that the people we spoke to have serious concerns about Wikipedia.

In fact, two things struck me. (1) That politicians are well aware of Wikipedia because of the BLP problem. The deputy chairman of the Conservative Party told us that his son had made some outrageous and silly edits to his article. And (2) it was plain that they had no real knowledge of how Wikipedia worked from the inside, and were keen to hear all about it.

Andreas wrote an excellent presentation which will be available online at some point.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 8th February 2012, 9:25am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 8th February 2012, 2:07pm) *

What's the latest on this effort, Peter?


They sent a curious and illogical rejection, which I have challenged. The rejection was illogical in that they said (a) the charity commission does require controls, and yet in the next sentence (b) that it does not require controls. I have written back asking which of these they want to uphold, since their reply violates logic in its present form. There is a two step escalation process.

In connexion with this, I met with Andreas Kolbe (another Wikipedia editor) at the House of Commons with two representatives of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, one of whom agreed to follow up with the Commission if that process failed. We also made a formal submission to the Committee before it closed last week. I don’t want to release too much about what was discussed as this is still ongoing. I will say that the people we spoke to have serious concerns about Wikipedia.

In fact, two things struck me. (1) That politicians are well aware of Wikipedia because of the BLP problem. The deputy chairman of the Conservative Party told us that his son had made some outrageous and silly edits to his article. And (2) it was plain that they had no real knowledge of how Wikipedia worked from the inside, and were keen to hear all about it.

Andreas wrote an excellent presentation which will be available online at some point.

That sounds promising... let us know when it's "safe" to get into the details. smile.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

Another update. Fairly tough going, dealing with bureaucrats. They have acknowledged that having effective controls over quality is something UKCC 'have to be satisfied about'. This is because, without effective controls, WMUK does not have an 'exclusively charitable purpose'.

There was quote a bit of correspondence about whether UKCC 'requires' controls. They still insist they don't 'require' them, but they do 'have to be satisfied' that they exist. I'm totally unclear about the niceties of this distinction, but 'having to be satisfied' will do sufficiently. They were much more helpful when I dropped that the evidence from JN466 (Andreas) had been submitted to the Levenson enquiry and was the subject of parliamentary scrutiny.

I shall be updating my submission to reflect the recent news that hoax material from Wikipedia has found its way into medical journals.

[edit] On my complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, this WILL be taken up and will be formally submitted to the ASA council for judgment soon.

So poo to those who laughed at people who complain. If it weren't for moaners like us, where would we be?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 1st March 2012, 3:55pm) *

So poo to those who laughed at people who complain. If it weren't for moaners like us, where would we be?

Bravo! Keep it up, Edward.

Posted by: Selina

smile.gif http://whatdotheyknow.com (via http://theyworkforyou.com)

Posted by: HRIP7

The document with Ed's and my evidence submission to the Joint Committee is now online on the UK Parliament website.

Our chapter is http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425.

The document also contains


And Wikipedia crops up at various other points throughout the 1,200-page document.

Posted by: RMHED

Good work.

The demographics part is very telling and certainly goes a long way to explain Wikipedia's problems.
It's just a shame that Parliament itself is 78% male dominated, albeit somewhat older than the Wikipedia contributor average.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(RMHED @ Sun 11th March 2012, 10:12pm) *

Good work.

The demographics part is very telling and certainly goes a long way to explain Wikipedia's problems.
It's just a shame that Parliament itself is 78% male dominated, albeit somewhat older than the Wikipedia contributor average.



Parliament is made up of men's with known real identities and reporters who keep an eye on malfeasance. The problem with WMUK is that they claim they deserve governmental perks while keeping anonymity to help protect people doing many, many unethical things.

Posted by: Peter Damian

These are all well worth reading (the third one is Van Haeften's oral submission
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=664 . This http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=218 is Peter Cohen's detailed rebuttal of those claims (very good). And this http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425 is the evidence Andreas Kolbe presented at Parliament last month, to Yasmin Qureshi and Lord Dobbs.

One Wikipedian has already commented

QUOTE

As far as I see someone aggressively tries to push his personal
opinions as widely accepted facts. Nothing unusual.

Peter [Peter Gervai, WMF Hungary press office]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072558.html


Of course! Dismiss the whole thing on some mailing list read exclusively by Wikipedians, and the problem will go away.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:54am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Sun 11th March 2012, 10:12pm) *

Good work.

The demographics part is very telling and certainly goes a long way to explain Wikipedia's problems.
It's just a shame that Parliament itself is 78% male dominated, albeit somewhat older than the Wikipedia contributor average.



Parliament is made up of men's with known real identities and reporters who keep an eye on malfeasance. The problem with WMUK is that they claim they deserve governmental perks while keeping anonymity to help protect people doing many, many unethical things.


And whilst WR has demonstrated that it also has problems with anonymity protecting people doing unethical things, it doesn't get benefits as a charity and isn't a top six site. So, in the absence of a less corrupt alternative, it would be nice if people continue to contribute constructively to threads like this rather than run off in a huff.

On the subject in hand, it does not look as if either van Haeften or WMUK have seen fit to reply to any of the specific criticisms of their evidence despite receiving copies of it. So they appear to be tacitly accepting that the evidence is valid and that van Haeften's evidence to the committee is inconsistent with what he and other people get up to on Wikimedia projects.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:02am) *

...the third one is Van Haeften's oral submission


<snigger> yikes.gif

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE

As far as I see someone aggressively tries to push his personal
opinions as widely accepted facts. Nothing unusual.

Peter [Peter Gervai, WMF Hungary press office]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072558.html

Naturally a Wikipedian wouldn't find that unusual. It happens on Wikipedia all the time.

Posted by: lilburne

Opportunity knocks:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 12th March 2012, 8:58am) *

Opportunity knocks:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master

Working link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/

Looks like Jimbo finally landed a government appointment. twilightzone.gif

Posted by: lilburne

Tories -> Jimmy -> Commons -> Pornography -> Convicted KP distributors -> Welcome
Tories -> Jimmy -> Talk Page -> Commons should have loads of boardline KP -> Silence


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:12am) *

Working link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/

Looks like Jimbo finally landed a government appointment. twilightzone.gif

"unpaid advisor" --> stooge

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:33am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:12am) *

Working link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/

Looks like Jimbo finally landed a government appointment. twilightzone.gif

"unpaid advisor" --> stooge

Well, I'm sure it probably attracts lobbyists. More mooching possibilities.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 1:33pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:12am) *

Working link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/

Looks like Jimbo finally landed a government appointment. twilightzone.gif

"unpaid advisor" --> stooge


I thought you no longer wished to post here?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:26am) *

I thought you no longer wished to post here?

Just tormenting a few people until the new site is up and running.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 4:37pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:26am) *

I thought you no longer wished to post here?

Just tormenting a few people until the new site is up and running.


Yeah right.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 12:51pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 4:37pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:26am) *

I thought you no longer wished to post here?

Just tormenting a few people until the new site is up and running.

Yeah right.

slapfight.gif popcorn.gif

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 4:37pm) *
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:26am) *
I thought you no longer wished to post here?
Just tormenting a few people until the new site is up and running.

damn, I'm going to miss it (unless it launches in the next 10 hours). Going away on a long trip. Good luck!

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:02am) *

These are all well worth reading (the third one is Van Haeften's oral submission
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=664 . This http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=218 is Peter Cohen's detailed rebuttal of those claims (very good). And this http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425 is the evidence Andreas Kolbe presented at Parliament last month, to Yasmin Qureshi and Lord Dobbs.

One Wikipedian has already commented
QUOTE

As far as I see someone aggressively tries to push his personal
opinions as widely accepted facts. Nothing unusual.

Peter [Peter Gervai, WMF Hungary press office]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072558.html


Of course! Dismiss the whole thing on some mailing list read exclusively by Wikipedians, and the problem will go away.


All great stuff. Peter's submission exposes Fae as a charlatan. Andreas effectively exposes WP's serious problems. 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.

Also, if you need more anti-religion vitriol to use as quotes to show Wikipedian's bias against religious topics, just peruse the talk page archives of the Intelligent Design article.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 12th March 2012, 7:49pm) *

All great stuff. Peter's submission exposes Fae as a charlatan.


Isn't the problem the fact that Fae was so eager to expose himself?

sick.gif

QUOTE

Andreas effectively exposes WP's serious problems. 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.


I do like that. It is similar to using Jimbo's "celeb" status to force him to try to fix problems via negative publicity.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Which raises an interesting issue. Making clear the true destination of donations is almost certain to reduce the amount raised, for reasons we have discussed. It is now in the interests of global WMF – who do not have to comply with UK advertising standards – to cancel their agreement with WMUK and raise funds directly. One to watch.

This also demonstrates that engaging with Wikipedia and Wikimedia in their own closed world is unproductive or impossible. Better to use existing levers in the real world.

Posted by: standixon

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.

Which raises an interesting issue. Making clear the true destination of donations is almost certain to reduce the amount raised, for reasons we have discussed. It is now in the interests of global WMF – who do not have to comply with UK advertising standards – to cancel their agreement with WMUK and raise funds directly. One to watch.

This also demonstrates that engaging with Wikipedia and Wikimedia in their own closed world is unproductive or impossible. Better to use existing levers in the real world.


Excellent!

Posted by: KD Tries Again

Just catching up with this. You're doing some good work, Peter.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 6:44am) *

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.

Which raises an interesting issue. Making clear the true destination of donations is almost certain to reduce the amount raised, for reasons we have discussed. It is now in the interests of global WMF – who do not have to comply with UK advertising standards – to cancel their agreement with WMUK and raise funds directly. One to watch.

This also demonstrates that engaging with Wikipedia and Wikimedia in their own closed world is unproductive or impossible. Better to use existing levers in the real world.



So what is the end goal? Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?

Posted by: HRIP7

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

This also demonstrates that engaging with Wikipedia and Wikimedia in their own closed world is unproductive or impossible. Better to use existing levers in the real world.

Indeed.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 1:16pm) *

So what is the end goal? Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?

I'm pretty sure it's both, since he's been fighting the good fight both from the inside and from the outside. Or at least he tries from the inside when he's not banned. laugh.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:16pm) *

So what is the end goal? Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?


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

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:16pm) *

So what is the end goal? Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?


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


And sky blue unicorns, with silken manes and plaited tails, which defecate rose-smelling gold coins.

Posted by: Fusion

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.

Posted by: RMHED

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

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:35pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 13th March 2012, 8:22pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:16pm) *

So what is the end goal? Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?


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


And sky blue unicorns, with silken manes and plaited tails, which defecate rose-smelling gold coins.


Couldn't we just agree on a 404 error.

Posted by: Ottava

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

Posted by: Proabivouac

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:16pm) *

Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?

Forcing them to be truthful would amount to shutting them down.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 13th March 2012, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th March 2012, 5:16pm) *

Shutting down the corrupt WMUK because the people involved are bad, or just forcing the WMF to be truthful in general?
Forcing them to be truthful would amount to shutting them down.

Despite their booming fundraising, Wikipedia participation is continuing to flatline.
If they were forced to do things they don't want to do, I expect that many of the oldtimey insiders would quit instead.
Eventually attrition would leave the WMF (and especially WMUK) with more honest people in charge.

It's a painful culture war and it shows all the signs of going on forever, because I do not picture WMF simply "going away" for quite a long time.
Still, someday you (and millions of schoolchildren all over the world) will owe Peter Damian a great deal of thankfulness for his efforts.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

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 http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports/2012/March&diff=19983&oldid=19978 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.

Posted by: RMHED

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.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: Cla68

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 http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports/2012/March&diff=19983&oldid=19978 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.

Posted by: Ottava

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.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

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.

Posted by: Zoloft

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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37210

twilightzone.gif

Posted by: Proabivouac

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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.

Posted by: Text

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?

Posted by: Retrospect

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?

Posted by: Tarc

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.

Posted by: Text

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.php?storyId=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?

Posted by: Text

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-as-greece-adds-pedophilia-to-list-of-disabilities/

Posted by: Jay

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.