Whilst Googling for some information, I've just come across this:
http://www.wajoop.com/James-Robertson-Justice
which is clearly a machine translation of our
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robertson_Justice
I'm particularly fond of "The Blow of Blow of Chitty of Chitty" in the filmography.
I defy anyone to read it without laughing as it's just kept me in pleats for 20 minutes.
Cheers
What do we do with vandalism now?
1) Warned the user
2) Repeat vandalism results in a block for the user / IP
3) Persistent pattern of vandalism is escalated to WP:ABUSE which reports the matter to the IP owner concerned.
People in the past have been sacked by their employers for abusing Wikipedia and school kids have been disciplined.
Criminal sanctions takes it a step higher of course, but it's a tool open to us and I think we should consider using it when we can and when it's appropriate. You're probably right that this isn't exactly the right case - but I still think it's quite shocking and damaging to our reputation to hear a fairly mainstream British magazine bragging about vandalism in this way.
We reality is we haven't managed. We have an appalling reputation for vandalism - rightly or wrongly - and worse, a reputation that we simply don't care about vandalism. Particularly for BLPs, I would say this is the number one issue we have to deal with to safeguard our future. We need to take it more seriously and we need to change what we do. Personally I think criminal sanctions should be part of this.
There's also a broader reality here about the way the internet is changing. For years the internet was an anarchic place full of anonymous and untraceable users and zero policing. This has changed quite fundamentally in the last few years. Popular webpages use real names. People are sacked for writing things on facebook. Spammers and child porn users have been jailed. Bulletin board users have been sued for libels they've written. The "real world" and the "virtual world" are coming together in a way that was unimaginable five years ago.
In that context, the idea of prosecuting persistent or high-profile Wikipedia vandals shouldn't be out of the question.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2009 11:36:28 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article
2009/4/17 Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>:
> I'm not sure why we're discussing legal options. Even if there were
> legal avenues open to us, it would be silly to pursue them.
I endorse this comment entirely. It seems a little surreal to read
some of the discussion in this thread, which whilst no doubt
interesting from an academic perspective, doesn't sit very comfortably
with our normal practice!
We've managed fine for eight years without suing people who do
breaching experiments. Suddenly arguing we ought to change this in the
case of someone who probably didn't do one as such anyway is a little
uncharacteristic...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
> Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
> authors may grant a free licence.>>
--------
I'm very suspicious of this claim.
If I and seven other own a piece of property, I alone cannot sell it to a
prospective buyer. The same would hold of copyright. Although each owner
has a copyright, a single owner cannot grant away the entire right to a third
party.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Thought I might link the latest Orlowski 'article'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
"Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity, according to the UK tax
man. Revenue and Customs is denying tax privileges that go with
charity status to Wikimedia UK, or Wiki UK Limited, as it's officially
registered."
Any article that start with an insult, you know it's going to be good!
(Also, some carelessness - is the capitalization really so hard to get
right?)
Worth noting also is the quiet little redefinition - something isn't
charitable activity unless it can get tax breaks.
'Wikimedia requested that because it is "disseminating knowledge", the
operating company should receive charitable tax perks, stating its
objective is to "aid and encourage people to collect, develop and
effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and
historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows
everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content... [blah blah]"'
Scare quotes, belittling phrases ('charitable tax perks'? seriously);
the second quote is neutral, but one could be forgiven for not even
noticing that due to the insert of 'blah blah'. A more charitable
person would understand that all those terms are very specific and
there for a reason. Of course, a more charitable person would be
writhing in utter shame that they are Orlowski.
"Alas, the tax man didn't agree that merely curating and publishing
the world's most intensely-edited [citation needed] compendium of
Lightsaber combat and female pornographic film actors doesn't count as
education."
Not particularly stylish a variant of this hoary old criticism; and
not even correct. We amputated our lightsaber coverage with a chainsaw
and shot the bloody stumps over to Wookieepedia a long time ago.
(Although I'll admit to not knowing how meritorious our porn coverage
is.)
'"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,"
Customs responded in declining the request.
Harsh, or what?'
Perhaps. But then, as an American unacquainted with British charity
laws, this sounds to me like 'we've never supported encyclopedias, and
we have no mandate to start now'; which while arguably unfair and
silly isn't particularly harsh. 'Just doing my job, ma'am.'
"The problem could be solved if, as everyone expects, Wikipedia
becomes a commercial operation that doesn't need charitable status.
Bono-backed VC company Elevation Partners has chucked $1.35m at
Wikipedia, and the Mozilla Foundation provides a workable legal
precedent: a non-profit with a commercial wing. License changes are
currently being mooted."
This is actually my favorite paragraph in the entire piece. There's so
much to like about it! There's a subtle touch in saying 'Bono-backed'
- - it's utterly irrelevant, of course, but it immediately brings
associations of Hollywood and sneering liberals and ineffective social
policies and aid expenditures and staleness. There's a foisting of
views; 'everyone expects' Wikipedia to become a commercial operation?
Indeed.
And then there's that last line. Again we have an exquisite word
choice. The license changes could be 'voted upon', or less
informatively, 'discussed' or 'considered'. But instead we have
'mooted', with its connotations of snootyness and academia. Not to
mention that we are clearly led to believe the license changes will
facilitate such conversion, by sheer juxtaposition if nothing else.
(Although I have been educated stupid by my readings of the GFDL and
CC licenses, and so cannot appreciate just how CC-BY-SA will enable
the enrichment of Elevation Partners, that they may continue to light
their cigars with Benjamin in the manner to which they have accustomed
themselves.)
"But for now, the fiddlers could find ways of making the operation
look more edukashnul and that. We suggest Wikia UK establish a British
School of Fiddling, in which the public can be tutored in the
labyrinthine layers of bureaucracy required to have their edits to
"the Encyclopedia anybody can edit" rejected."
And a final salvo. I take off some points here for invoking fiddling
twice; it's not stylish, as it was already used in the lead. Three
times in an article is just tedious. 'edukashnul' gets some points for
having no apparent target - at least, I can't figure out who the
spleen is directed at. The government? The chapter? The Foundation?
Otherwise, good rhetoric in the figure of a School of Fiddling.
A jolly enjoyable read! My day would surely have been less enjoyable
without Orlowski's latest. With enemies like these, who needs friends?
- --
gwern
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkn3yUAACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJ1rwCdEcT7WSSv5zJLwSxecACK/fdG
ZlkAoJdXObm8kdkkLhIyjSXgWTdeUiXL
=rnd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
> "Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
> architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
> mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this
> won't google up."
>
> Doc's saying that people delete based on Google results.>>
---------------
Google Books changes everything.
If they delete based on Google and fail to search Google Books for items of
historical note then they are acting without a duty of actual research.
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the
first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects
into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not
necessarily currently talked-up might have been quite the popular rage back in
1920 or 1920 or 1420, and should not be deleted based on current Google
searches.
With Google Books we can now allow the Chair Potato to see that for
themselves.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
Just to briefly correct a couple of items in this post:
>> Maybe the drafters had specific reasons in mind when they employed these
words, but they obviously failed to take into account what it would take
to satisfy Inland Revenue when they used them
When we drafted our objectives, compliance with charity law was one our top priorities, along with complying with the Foundation's requirements and allowing us to do those things to support free content that we were founded to achieve. The explanatory notes here - written at the time the objects were agreed - are interesting to read in light of developments:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_Association#Object
This clause has been written with one principal "Object", summarising our work, and a number of subsidiary "means", giving examples of how we intend to fulfill this Object. This format was chosen so that we could most easily demonstrate that our activities are "exclusively charitable" whilst describing what we will do and allowing flexibility in the range of our future activities. We considered the Charity Commission's example Objects when drawing up these. The principal Object combines the m:Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, as per by the m:Requirements for future chapters with the phrases used to describe our charitable purposes in the Charities Act 2006, viz. "the advancement of education", "the advancement of culture" and "the advancement of heritage".
We continue to believe our objects are charitable and are seeking advice on how to reverse this decision. This is only the first step in the process!
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
Secretary, Wikimedia UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, 30 April, 2009 07:24:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status"
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Thought I might link the latest Orlowski 'article'.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
>
> "Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity, according to the UK tax
> man. Revenue and Customs is denying tax privileges that go with
> charity status to Wikimedia UK, or Wiki UK Limited, as it's officially
> registered."
>
> Any article that start with an insult, you know it's going to be good!
>
Insult to whom? Tax collectors are always fair game, and I would
suggest that "wiki-fiddling" is an ironic twist of the tax man's views.
> Worth noting also is the quiet little redefinition - something isn't
> charitable activity unless it can get tax breaks.
>
Tax breaks derive from charitable activity. That's exactly how I read
him. Where's the redefinition?
> 'Wikimedia requested that because it is "disseminating knowledge", the
> operating company should receive charitable tax perks, stating its
> objective is to "aid and encourage people to collect, develop and
> effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and
> historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows
> everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content... [blah blah]"'
>
> Scare quotes, belittling phrases ('charitable tax perks'? seriously);
> the second quote is neutral, but one could be forgiven for not even
> noticing that due to the insert of 'blah blah'. A more charitable
> person would understand that all those terms are very specific and
> there for a reason. Of course, a more charitable person would be
> writhing in utter shame that they are Orlowski.
>
"Blah blah" = "More legalese follows".
Maybe the drafters had specific reasons in mind when they employed these
words, but they obviously failed to take into account what it would take
to satisfy Inland Revenue when they used them. "Charitable tax perks"
is certainly a term of colloquial art that could be used to generally
describe the benefits received by any registered charity.
> '"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,"
> Customs responded in declining the request.
>
> Harsh, or what?'
>
> Perhaps. But then, as an American unacquainted with British charity
> laws, this sounds to me like 'we've never supported encyclopedias, and
> we have no mandate to start now'; which while arguably unfair and
> silly isn't particularly harsh. 'Just doing my job, ma'am.'
>
Some Americans can be just as unacquainted with British ironic writing
as with British charity laws. The result is certainly harsh, but that's
what you get when you apply rules strictly, and legal precedent tends to
favour a more traditional interpretation of "educational"
> "The problem could be solved if, as everyone expects, Wikipedia
> becomes a commercial operation that doesn't need charitable status.
> Bono-backed VC company Elevation Partners has chucked $1.35m at
> Wikipedia, and the Mozilla Foundation provides a workable legal
> precedent: a non-profit with a commercial wing. License changes are
> currently being mooted."
>
> This is actually my favorite paragraph in the entire piece. There's so
> much to like about it! There's a subtle touch in saying 'Bono-backed'
> - - it's utterly irrelevant, of course, but it immediately brings
> associations of Hollywood and sneering liberals and ineffective social
> policies and aid expenditures and staleness. There's a foisting of
> views; 'everyone expects' Wikipedia to become a commercial operation?
> Indeed.
>
Innovation in education does smack of "sneering liberalism", and such
talk is bound to add one more painful knot in conservative jockstraps.
> "But for now, the fiddlers could find ways of making the operation
> look more edukashnul and that. We suggest Wikia UK establish a British
> School of Fiddling, in which the public can be tutored in the
> labyrinthine layers of bureaucracy required to have their edits to
> "the Encyclopedia anybody can edit" rejected."
>
> And a final salvo. I take off some points here for invoking fiddling
> twice; it's not stylish, as it was already used in the lead. Three
> times in an article is just tedious. 'edukashnul' gets some points for
> having no apparent target - at least, I can't figure out who the
> spleen is directed at. The government? The chapter? The Foundation?
> Otherwise, good rhetoric in the figure of a School of Fiddling.
>
>
Could it be that traditional "edukashun" is the problem. That word
alone strengthens my view that government is the real object of the
criticism. You're just shooting the messenger.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:23:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
> I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not
> about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles
> attached to somebody's name.>>
>
------------------------
I agree that credentials don't necessarily make something a reliable
source. Our standard is that the author must have been previously published by a
third-party, known for doing fact-checking. Or something close to that
paraphrase.
Will
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 10:14:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
> But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
> what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.>>
--------------
By "you" and "you're" are you referring to me myself?
If not, then to what do you refer.
If so, then please point out where I have stated that I am a dictator.
Will
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
> author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
> AfD for notability that I've seen. I doubt it's going to change. I
did
> not create that, it's just the way it is.
>
> Will Johnson
I disagree. To delete requires a consensus to delete. That is, a
consensus of people believe the article has no place on wikipedia.>>
-----------------
You can't disagree, because I never said what you are disagreeing to.
Read what I said more clearly and you will see that I'm not speaking about
a consensus, nor a lack of consensus. I'm not talking about deletion, nor
keeping. I'm speaking of *who* has the burden of proof to show
"notability", or the lack of notability. The author? Or everyone else? We've always
recognized that it's the contributing author who has that burden-of-proof.
Will Johnson
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
ilExcScore428NO62)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
> The debate over whether some discussions are better held at a
> centralised, specialised venue, or on the article talk page, is a
> long one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
> It would be good to have a discussion here about that.>>
------------------
What I find is that in many cases they do start on the Talk page, and
migrate to the RSN based on a few factors.
Firstly the "no one is here" factor. Some pages have very light traffic
and it could be months before anyone responds to a comment on say, "Berengaria
of Navarre" as to whether "Runciman really is reliable for early Spanish
kingdoms?"
Secondly the "I don't like it" factor where either justifiably or not, the
source you're trying to bring, or discredit, is discredited or brought, by a
strong counter-voice and you want more weight on your side.
Will
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621499x1201450105/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=AprilExcScore428NO62)