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:





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.


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 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.

[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]

For some extra "oomph", you could print Jimbo Found Out and Jimbo Fired Up, and send the Charities Commission a copy.

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/cristina...-will-come-out/

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

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-al...ipedia-admitted

I suspect that this page that chronicles my problems with Wikipedia editors 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, even if the content happens to be illegal.

David r from meth productions
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...eth+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



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.

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




I see Coren is reading.

Perhaps the chair of the Charity Commission should read her own BLP.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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/20...comment-4936126

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

In fact, people have been inserting defamatory remarks in her BLP for years.

Usually via IP address, though it does appear that Galatian (T-C-L-K-R-D) doesn't like her very much.

And looky who expanded the article for the first time.

Gosh, Batman, I wonder who this is.

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.

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.

Narcs suck.

t

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.

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.

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.

The listing as it appears on the Commissions website, and the trustees.

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.



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.

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.

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

So the Trustees are just the current members of the Wikimedia UK board. A bunch of geeky white men with too much time on their hands and an inflated sense of their own importance.

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.

Steve Virgin, PR consultant.

"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.

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

I have discussed with Mike Peel and it turns out that the article in Third Sector http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/go/governance...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



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.

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?

This is a two-minute mp3 audio clip of Jimbo, 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:

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?

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.

Here is a transcription of the Fanning interview.

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.

Thankfully, it appears that Wikipedia does have high standards.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

However, WMUK says the Charity Commission has considered all of this

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

But it was you who first drew the analogy, by calling me a 'narc'. And what is this 'educational project' you are talking about?

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_Act...rity_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?

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.)

Of concern would be people from WMFUK interacting with children online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/p...tatutory-checks

As opposed to you...