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

[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

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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?

[thekohser]

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.

[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 guidance provided by the CC (emphasis added).

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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 guidance provided by the CC (emphasis added).

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.

[thekohser]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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.

[GlassBeadGame]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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.

[Malleus]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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. ~~~~

[thekohser]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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!

[GlassBeadGame]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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.

~~~~

Awe look someone's homesick.

[EricBarbour]

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

[*]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?)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 20th December 2011, 9:29pm

[GlassBeadGame]

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

[*]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 Request for Screeds? 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.

[Fusion]

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.

[Cla68]

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.

[lonza leggiera]

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 their current, articles of association. If you do a search on the UK Companies House website 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.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera: Wed 21st December 2011, 11:01am

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[lonza leggiera]

In addition to what Dogbiscuit so eloquently phrased, it is indisputable that the mainstream media is now picking up on the fact 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):

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 ... ".

[thekohser]

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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."