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

[Eppur si muove]

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

So if your complaint was upheld how does it fit with this from Chase me ladies, I've got a really good user name for a worker for a charity that supposedly wants to get more women editing Wikipedia?

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.

[RMHED]

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.

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.

- 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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

[Cla68]

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

So if your complaint was upheld how does it fit with this from Chase me ladies, I've got a really good user name for a worker for a charity that supposedly wants to get more women editing Wikipedia?

The single complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about our fundraising banners, made last month, has been dealt with amicably. The ASA did not believe that we had breached any rules, but they did suggest informally that we update our fundraising pages to reflect that money does go towards Wikimedia UK's Outreach activities, as well as technology and staff costs. We agreed completely with their suggestion, and we have already updated our donation pages, and have established a good relationship with the ASA.

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

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

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 13th March 2012, 10:42pm

[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.

[SB_Johnny]

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.

[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 here.

[Proabivouac]

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.

[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.