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

[Peter Damian]

I think I have found a lever at long last. The clue is in the long time it took for Wikimedia UK to get recognised as a charity. As Ashley van H says here http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140981 "it was quite a big story [i.e. charitable status] for the U.K - the charity commission struggled for a long period, and has had to refine their understanding of a public utility". What does he mean? Well it goes back to 2009, when the Charity Commission ruled that "The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education and has not been accepted as such in law... If the object [should] be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education," http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wi...ia_charity_not/ (register article)

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

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

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

This is really really really important. Wikimedia's lawyers had to argue that Wikimedia can operate under the heading "object of general public utility" as proposed by Samuel Romilly in the 19th century. There is a (somewhat long and difficult) legal judgment here http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html which illustrates the principle involved. According to the Romilly principle, benefit has to be conferred on the public by the proposed ends of the charity. Political purposes are not OK, nor the furtherance of a movement such as 'the Wikimedia movement'. Some identifiable section of the community must derive a real benefit from the purpose. More details from the Charity Commission website http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Librar...e/lawpb1208.pdf .

It was under a generous interpretation of the Romilly principle that WMUK was recognised. This was clearly why there was a requirement that "the content promoted has sufficient editorial controls and safeguards on the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided. "

I am now preparing an appeal to the UK Charities Commission, giving clear evidence of all the points in which WMUK demonstrably fails to meet the requirement for general public benefit, either because it lacks 'sufficient editorial controls', or for other reasons such as simply not benefiting the general public.

Any suggestions welcome. I am particularly interested in recent cases where Wikipedia has failed to provide appropriate control or oversight. I can think of a few, such as the Philip Mould case http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html, where a gross slur remained on the site for a year and a half. What are appropriate controls for this sort of thing? Is anonymous editing an insufficient? I think so. Is making the WMUK board collectively responsible for the content of BLPs a minimum condition for good control? I think so too. Please let me have your suggestions

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 22nd November 2011, 8:38pm

[EricBarbour]

Where were we? Oh yeah, here.

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

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

[Peter Damian]

Where were we? Oh yeah, here.

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

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

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

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

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

[EricBarbour]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 18th December 2011, 11:45am

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sycophantic blabber.

[thekohser]

Sycophantic blabber.

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