It won't be too long before a reputable news source covers the whole issue - or indeed a British Parliamentarian raises it under parliamentary privilege. Then, of course, the material will be in the article even if there is still an outstanding superinjunction

I'm thinking it will be interesting to see how Twitter's position is handled, namely that it's not a publisher. This is the issue that would impact on Wikipedia.

This does all raise an interesting question of what jurisdictions actually cover. In the "superinjunction" case for example, which of these is legally able to be sued: - A UK citizen who posts the names online from their home in the UK and then remains in the UK after - obviously "yes". - A US citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their hotel while on vacation in the UK, then remains in the UK for some time - A UK citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their hotel while on vacation in the US 1/ actionable while still on vacation in the US? 2/ actionable upon return to the UK? - A US citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their home in the US 1/ actionable while in the US (having not traveled)? 2/ actionable when they travel to the UK on vacation a while later? Just curious which of these is litigable or in contempt, and which is not. FT2

I think any user who uses Twitter to publish information in the U.K. may potentially be liable. Commons sense has got to kick in somehow, but look at the wigs they wear... Fred

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 19:29, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Twitter are planning to open a London office: http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twi… This should be... interesting. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you.

Failed state. Fred

Oh! Poor Jimbo! Fred

One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article: "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only provided users facilities which an enabled these acts and so was exempt from infringement..." Interesting that Google's defense is basically the same as P2P website hosts. "We're just indexing, it's the people who download that are responsible for any breach". I can't decide if this dismissal is reassuring (shows they are consistent between big sites and smaller ones how the legal knots are tied) or worrying (because of the severity it implies) in copyright terms...... FT2 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:28 PM, ???? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote:

On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued for libel under even US law What we've actualy got however is an argument over what is considered a reputable news source. -- geni

On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: [[WP:ITN]] There other thing to consider is that kiss and tell unless it involves someone like Michael Jackson doesn't have much of an overseas market. The Trafigura clearly was of interest (incidentally it appears that one of their PR people is trying to edit the Trafigura article). The Fred Goodwin one probably is. The rest that I know of probably not. -- geni

Actually no, the information is generally an invasion of privacy, and is oversightable on that basis, but see Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Infidelity Sometimes there is no point. Fred

Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of. We do suppress any mention of a superinjunction, as the assertion that there is embarrassing personal information sufficient to support issuance of a superinjunction is defaming. Fred Fred

What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information? Fred

Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't stamp On private communication. The injunction is on publishing the info. Telling your mates down the pub is fine. Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

It's not publishing the info. It's fine. The point is to stifle mass media. Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:28, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hmm. TL;DR version - communicating the contents of an injunction is not inherently illegal, communicating it to a private mailing list might be actionable, but highly unlikely, especially if the intent is to help supress publication of the information in a wider forum. Ok, now the longer form. What we are talking about here is civil litigation - so the first thing to clear up is that there is no criminal action involved in publishing the information. Which means if you do publish the information in a way the subject feels is in violation it is up to them to take you to court over it. No police will be knocking on your door :) So the first point to make there is.. how likely are they to take you to court over it? An injunction is a form of legal finding called an "equitable remedy" (we have articles about all of these things BTW, I just checked) which in this case widely prohibits people from a certain act (publishing the info). If you violate the injunction the litigant has to take you to court, which will then decide if you have broken the injunction and, based on your specific case, award some form of damages. This may simply be fines, or worse. telling your friends down the pub this information. From a practical perspective, if they took you to court over it they would not get far (because whilst the litigant is able to interpret the order as broadly as he or she likes, the courts interpretation is the binding one). The scope of the injunction depends a lot on the wording, but the intent in this case is to gag the media and other forms of mass publication - a judge is not very likely (at least in my experience of civil litigation) to interpret it so broadly. In addition, if a judge did allow the litigation to go fully before the courts there is great scope to argue that it is a violation of our right to free speech. Finally, if you are simply linking to already published information (i.e. on Wikipedia) there is a fairly strong argument that you are not the publisher of this information. Especially if you make no mention of the actual information in the communication. As the intent is to suppress the data it could be construed under "necessary communique" as part of complying with an equitable remedy. It is all a lot more complex than there is time for to go into in a single email :) but the practical upshot of this is; do not be too concerned about sending links to pre-published content that violates an injunction. The press has put a lot of stress on the terrifying scope and danger of these orders. There is danger (to society) in these things, and there is something to be concerned about. But not on a personal level. (IANAL; my interest in law is academic, but I have the good fortune to work alongside a pile of lawyers, civil and criminal) Tom On 20 May 2011 23:34, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 21 May 2011 00:42, Wjhonson &lt;wjhonson(a)aol.com&gt; wrote: The catch is the postcards are not considered private (postman can read them). If this applies to unencrypted emails (that can in theory be read by the admin of any server they go through) is a question that I've never run across an examination of. As for the wider point: "In law publication means distribution to just one other person (the third party) or potential distribution (for example on a postcard or maybe even just graffiti written on a wall)." http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=227 -- geni

Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the purposes of supressing it :-) Tom Morton On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Even the U.K. has not formally enacted Catch 22. Fred

On 5/20/11, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: Is there any project which allows usernames such as Administrator, Bureaucrat, Oversight or Steward? Isn't that confused and probably not allowed? Or which project allows a user name for more than one person? Cruccone

Marco Chiesa wrote: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist> prohibits those names across all Wikimedia wikis. MZMcBride

On 21 May 2011 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That is correct, which is precisely why we were able to create this account. It has been very helpful in reducing the number of on-wiki posts saying "I need oversight for this diff!" which was not really terribly helpful. On the other hand, it would probably only be useful for larger projects with a lot of oversight requests and also use an email notification system. Nonetheless, it's a bit off-topic. As to the comments from MZMcBride and Sarah, I would like to see a significantly higher minimal level of notability for BLPs. In the past few years of working with the Arbitration Committee, I have seen literally thousands of BLPs that easily meet the current notability standards, but have been turned into coatracks to highlight a particular belief of the subject (whether or not that is why they are notable), to self-aggrandize, to attach all the negative information that can be found about the subject regardless of its comparative triviality. Worse yet are the ones that are userfied instead of deleted, or never even made it into article space; they often come up as top google hits for the subject, because Google "crawls" user space. (They don't seem to crawl user talk or article talk, or if they do, they do not include them in their results.) Risker/Anne

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The Community Dept (Christine) is in the midst of looking at and classifying inbound tickets to begin to give us a real feel for that. I hope we'll have some answers soon, but I'll ask her to give me a 30,000 foot overview and report back here. pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations) philippe(a)wikimedia.org

Hello, I found an email today from someone who still cares to keep me updated about what happens on the English Wikipedia's "corridors". Since my name is mentioned in the discussion, he thought I'd be interested in this. There is a user on the English language Wikipedia who calls himself "Supreme Deliciousness". He was blocked and warned on and off because of his highly political edits and constant war edits. Now he started stalking people, apparently I included. Admins fully cooperate with him. I wouldn't have brought this issue to the attention of this mailing list, unless I had serious suspicions that illegal or highly unethical actions are going on. Many people here don't like my attitude toward Wikipedia. I am not here to argue about that. I will have plenty of time to discuss it with anyone who'd like to on other occasions. I think my service to Wikimedia and its projects, even when I had profound disagreements about the policy of the organization, was good enough to give me some credit. Now we are talking about unethical, or possibly illegal actions that are talking against me and people who, for some unknown reason, are associated with me. Here is the link to the discussion on en-wp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork The user "Supreme Deliciousness" says: "I have private information that I can send to admin through mail that links Drork to these IPs." I want to receive all such private information about me, so I could see whether I should file complaints to my Internet Service Provider or even a higher instance, as there is clearly a breach of my privacy. I think further checks should be made against "Supreme Deliciousness" to see whether he stalks other users. I also want to know why admins take this issue so lightly. If people dislike me - so be it, but I, and other people involved, are entitled to some protection against stalkers. Thank you, Dror K

I am not going to act as if this is a trial against me. If this is a trial, then I have every right to know who accuses me and on what ground. Currently what we have here is a WP user who says he has private information about me and about other users, allegedly proving we are the same person (this might mean that I'm Superman, but I won't put this assumption into test...). This claim of his indicate that he has been stalking me and other users. This is a serious issue. Dror K בתאריך 22/05/11 08:08, ציטוט George Herbert:

Hoi, Leave off. Foundation-l is a place where relevant subjects can be raised. It is a place that has a bad reputation among some because of the aggressive tone. When Dror complains about stalking, it is a valid point of concern. It is the reason why some people I admire left our community. When you have concerns about Dror using sock puppets, there are ways to raise these concerns without contaminating the issue of stalking on this list. Thanks, GerardM On 22 May 2011 08:07, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

2011/5/22 Ryan Lomonaco &lt;wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: It may not be a foundation-l issue, but it does raise a point: This whole discussion is about stalking and sockpuppetry and not about content. Of course, particular content disputes have no place here either, but the mere mentioning of the name Dror immediately renders the discussion pointless and that is troublesome. An "extensive sockpuppetry history" is by itself not a reason for moderation or for ignoring valid concerns about privacy policy violations. Even an extensive history of bad edits is not a reason for any of these. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces,  I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

For the record, upon the advice of a member of this mailing list, I sent details about this affairs to the ombudsman team. I also added a complaint about the "sock-puppet" list to which Mr. Herbert had given reference. I'll let the team deal with it, and, for the time being, say nothing that might influence their deliberations. Dror K בתאריך 22/05/11 13:09, ציטוט Gerard Meijssen:

2011/5/22 Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt;om>: Notified whom? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces,  I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

2011/5/22 Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt;om>: Oh. This initialism may be well-known to some English Wikipedia editors, but not to all of them, and certainly not to all members of foundation-l. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

Apparently, this has already been done by others. SD preferred to erase this head-up along with some other notifications about complaints against him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&a… Dror K בתאריך 22/05/11 14:00, ציטוט Thomas Morton:

Tom, since you did not respect my last message here, you force me to react. There seem to be "anti-Dror" and "pro-Dror" camps here, and I don't like this idea at all. The issue is not entirely personal, even though I am personally attacked here by certain people based on their mere speculations. And yet, the issue is much wider, and it relates to violation of privacy policy and misconduct on behalf of certain admins on en-wp, which amounts to unethical actions (and I am careful not to suggest a worse scenario). "Supreme Deliciousness" is not a side to this discussion. The problem is not the "mouse" but rather the "hole" in which he dwells. Naturally, SD would deny he did anything wrong. The problem is that certain users go hand-in-hand with him, accept his accusations against me, and against people allegedly associated with me, without any substantial evidence, hence damaging not only me personally but other people as well. Now certain admins also hold private information about me, obtained unlawfully or unethically, without notifying me, without warning SD for his unacceptable conduct and without showing any willingness to address the problem seriously. Dror K בתאריך 22/05/11 13:54, ציטוט Thomas Morton:

Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit : Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?

Community consensus will not permit that. Fred

Anyone who is willing and able to edit constructively and more or less follow our policies has a right to edit. The right is not enforceable in court (there IS no enforceable legal right) but is the policy of the community. Fred

Dror, this is not about "anti-" or "pro-" whoever camps. But you have made a serious allegation on a public and archived mailing list. It's only fair that Supreme Deliciousness is informed and allowed a right of reply. Pete / the wub On 22 May 2011 14:40, Dror Kamir &lt;dqamir(a)bezeqint.net&gt; wrote:

On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Some figures Amory Meltzer and I came up with in 2010: In a single week in late 2009, we got an average of 40-50 active tickets per day - not spam, not people thinking we were someone else, etc. 15% of those were about BLP issues. If we look *only* at tickets about specific article issues (removing the general WP/WMF-related enquiries and "normal" vandalism reports), BLP tickets made up 30% of the traffic. Making an estimate for recurring cases, this suggests we get contacted regarding 2,000 to 2,500 BLP issues per year. I don't have any figures on actionability, I'm afraid, but it's an intriguing question... The vast majority of these were regarding one specific BLP article; a couple were BLP issues on non-BLP articles, usually companies and towns. All told, BLP articles proportionally generated about two to three times more issues than other content. The interesting aspect here is that two-thirds of BLP issues are reported by the subject, or by someone close to or involved with the subject (a relative, colleague, agent, etc). If we look *only* at third-party reports, BLPs seem to generate about as much traffic as any other content. The same held for looking solely at "normal" vandalism reports - 15%. Read what you will into that one... my personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to be seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived harm, leading to a greater response rate. ~15% of traffic, they take up substantially more time and effort. My initial estimate was that they take up at least half the editor-hours put into handling OTRS tickets; it would be hard to quantify this without some fairly detailed surveys, but it feels right. Writing to someone involved with the issue personally is always more complicated, especially if they're - justifiably - angry or worried about the situation. The problems are often quite complex, so can sit longer while people consider how to approach the issue, and are more likely to involve (long-term) onwiki followup, or require multiple rounds of correspondence. As a result, I suspect my 30% of "article issues" and Christine's 45% are closer than they might seem - there's an unusually large backlog of tickets this past month, compared to the situation a few months ago, and so a count based on "still open" will suggest more of them than actually come in on a daily basis. Regarding a separate BLP queue, we found that a significant number of tickets get handled in the "wrong" queues, because it's often simpler for someone to respond to the email wherever it's come in rather than move the ticket and then respond to it. Which is perfectly fine, of course - a response goes out and everyone's happy - but it does mean that the response data categorised by queue is often fairly inaccurate. For meaningful data on any particular class of tickets, you'd probably have to sample. Apologies for the length, but hopefully that's of some use! -- - Andrew Gray   andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; Sender: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:32:06 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List&lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: It's very helpful, Andrew, thank you. I'd like to see some kind of confidential reporting system for BLP issues, because a lot aren't channeled through OTRS. But because we have no way of recording them, the extent of the problem is unknown. It would have to be confidential, so as not to draw attention to the articles. A Foundation email address would suffice, where we report that someone complained about [[Article X]]. Sometimes it's as simple as receiving an email request to remove a date of birth, but the point is we have caused that person worry. I would like to know how much worry we are causing the subjects of our articles. And yes, I take your point about how long it can take to resolve these things. I've been involved in non-OTRS BLP issues, and people need a lot of reassurance, so it can be very time-consuming. Sarah _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", inviting them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to remedies for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing from us might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something right". Anyone with notability will surely have email or contact details. While this would not stop poor articles initially being created it would probably be seen positively and allow early input from the subject. The fact that most subjects would probably have criticisms, thoughts, or requests for changes should not be a negative - that's their right and the fact some don't know or don't hear about a Wiki entry, doesn't change this. Can we somehow engage better with subjects? FT2

My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; Sender: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 00:40:10 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List&lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 &lt;ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I've not heard that idea before; I like it. We should do that. It wouldn't be difficult and would, as you say, show that we are at least trying to do the right thing. We would need to be prepared to deal with the increased traffic to OTRS that it would inevitably result in, but that's not too big a problem. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone notable will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly. Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website, politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or governmental office, authors have a publisher, and a vast number of people have an easily located personal website, agent, or known organization they are closely affiliated with. Even alleged criminals have a lawyer or a means of contact. The kind of stuff needed for contact details is almost always noted in any "keepable" BLP, or a minute's web searching. A few may need Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, but I suspect not many. Only a very small minority will not be easily identified with a means of email or other direct contact within a few minutes. Worth it, I think. FT2 On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote:

I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing. Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's a BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be there whether they know it or not. So the question is, is it ethically better, and likely to improve quality, if they do know about it? Probably yes. We will for sure get some irate replies or requests that we simply can't meet (ie demands or expectations that won't work with a neutral reference site). But we will also be recognized as trying to do right in a way few other sources do. I don't think that the problem outweighs the clear benefits of doing so. I'm also inclined to believe innate human decency will help us - a few people act like jerks but the majority, given a fair explanation, will appreciate the effort, thank us, understand they are being consulted on any issues they notice, and try to help. Maybe we can design a possible email, experiment on a couple of batches of 30 - 50 newly created and older BLPs, and see what happens? FT2 On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com > I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of > raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take > exception to negative material. > > I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he > has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number of years. He > viewed the associated Wikipedia articles (which were reasonably balanced, > but did include negative information about him) as an extension of that > attack. His attempts to insert his version of "the truth" caused > disruption, > but more importantly it really really upset him. > > I can forsee this happening a lot more if we *tell* everyone they have a > biography :) > > Sending something like that out is basically an invitation to edit their > biography; and the combination of being a WP newbie, and writing about > themselves is not usually a good one. > > If we can address that issue at the same time, then sure, it's a good idea. > > Tom > > On 23 May 2011 14:28, FT2 &lt;ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> > > A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone > > notable > > will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly. > > Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website, > > politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or > > governmental office, authors have a publisher, and a vast number of > people > > have an easily located personal website, agent, or known organization > they > > are closely affiliated with. Even alleged criminals have a lawyer or a > > means > > of contact. The kind of stuff needed for contact details is almost always > > noted in any "keepable" BLP, or a minute's web searching. > > > > A few may need Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, but I suspect not many. Only > a > > very small minority will not be easily identified with a means of email > or > > other direct contact within a few minutes. > > > > Worth it, I think. > > > > FT2 > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org> > > > > On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > > On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2&lt;ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > >> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could > > we > > > not > > > >> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical > > > article > > > >> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", > > > inviting > > > >> them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to > > > remedies > > > >> for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing > from > > us > > > >> might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something > right". > > > > I've not heard that idea before; I like it. We should do that. It > > > > wouldn't be difficult and would, as you say, show that we are at > least > > > > trying to do the right thing. We would need to be prepared to deal > > > > with the increased traffic to OTRS that it would inevitably result > in, > > > > but that's not too big a problem. > > > > > > I don't think it's impossible, but I think finding an email address for > > > the average person is going to be harder than you think. I do a good > bit > > > of email-finding to contact journal-paper authors whose email address > > > has changed from the one published in the journal, but especially > > > outside of the sciences, this isn't particularly easy. Many professors > > > have no websites, and many who do don't have an email address on the > > > site. You end up having to dig up the university's "find person" > > > database and search, and sometimes that database isn't even publicly > > > available. And for celebrities, they actively go out of their way to > > > hide their email. CEOs and similar in the business world usually don't > > > have emails publicly listed either. > > > > > > At the very least, it'd be quite a bit of work, and would probably > > > require someone willing to use non-email communication channels, like > > > LinkedIn messaging or Twitter or something, to achieve reasonable > > > coverage. Might be an interesting experiment. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

Yet, this remains true: "The judge said: "It has never been suggested, of course, that there is any legitimate public interest, in the traditional sense, in publishing this information." Fred

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell &lt;keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People Apologies, it seems the lowercase p version didn't get a redirect. I'll fix that. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

On 21/05/2011 23:09, Sarah wrote: There are many core problems that affect this issue. One of which is 'Verifiability not truth' which seems a laudable concept when applied to hearsay, and to allow articles on the paranormal etc. But is often used in BLP articles to justify including untruths, rumours, and to repeat slurs about someone, that happen to have a source that can be verified.

Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland. Perhaps the WMF should open an office in Edinburgh, if London is too risky ;-) Chris

Nevertheless, when the minimum bet at a table is 100,000 pounds it is wiser to watch than to play. There is no way deliberate calculated violation of an injunction will be viewed favorably, at least initially. An adverse decision may be overturned or enforceable, but it is an expensive game. Fred

On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote: The editors aren't safe though. JW was on the BBC radio yesterday saying that the WMF would hand over IP addresses if asked by the courts.

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ???? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: Jimbo said the Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions? Did he actually say that, and if so when did the Foundation decide this? Sarah

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, ???? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; wrote: Given that he said a few days ago that privacy laws were a human-rights violation, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13372839 I'd be surprised if he now said the Foundation would just cave in and hand over IP addresses in relation to them.

I read that rather differently; to me what it says is that they will make an optimum response tailored to the situation presented. I'm not sure that would include refusing to release the ip address of an account on the warpath against superinjunctions. There is a distinction between trying, and perhaps failing, to comply and aggressive defiance. By the way, I think this NYT"s article: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22gossip.html?ref=todayspaper "The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash" may be of some relevance. I don't think we should pander in this way, regardless of public interest by the public, the media, or our editors. Perhaps just a note on any article about a celebrity that there is public interest by the tabloids in their personal affairs. Fred

My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: ???? &lt;wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk&gt; Sender: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 22:46:00 To: &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List&lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List &lt;foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action On 22/05/2011 21:04, Fred Bauder wrote: "The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash": an article where paragraph after paragraph is ... wait for it ... gossip. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l