Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like, that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo." It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus, that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like, that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo." It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus, that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
The front page of wikipedia should not be used for campianing whatever the cause. We don't have a big notice on the front page when china banned as I fail to see a reason to put up a notice now. -- geni
(Appears that I mispelled "informashion" in the subject.)
Well, you correctly mention China and its quite proper to focus a great deal of energy on their restrictions on information and communication. (Do they block Wikipedia because of communication or information reasons?). In that regard, the esteemed founder took a wisely netural and non-provocative course. In a country where there is no established freedom of speech, it may not be polite to assume that arguements based on local free speech concepts are valid over there. The UK however has a substantial English-speaking population, and likewise a tradition of emulating and deferring to American concepts of personal liberty etc. The current case is of course an important and interesting anomaly, and its a good thing to see that Wikipedias users have used WP:ITN to properly feature an important story that American media has left alone, and which UK media lack the liberty to properly investigate.
Certainly I think the issue is best targeted to Wikisource, and I listed a request at Talk:Main Page to put the banner up. Im not being a hard on about it - I think its appropriate that it generate discussion, and it may be that as far as Public domain documents go, the Al Jazeera bombing memo might just be the most interesting source document in the world right now. IAC it would be nice to define where the community line ends, between what Jimbo may mutter in the field, and what people actually think.
Stevertigo Voting is only evil if its rigged
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and,
like,
that includes our friends even in the UK, who
arent
used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to
put
this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png
) on
the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my
meta
priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a
little
white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera
memo."
It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand
up
for freedom of information (and stuff) though.
Plus,
that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
The front page of wikipedia should not be used for campianing whatever the cause. We don't have a big notice on the front page when china banned as I fail to see a reason to put up a notice now. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
(Appears that I mispelled "informashion" in the subject.)
Well, you correctly mention China and its quite proper to focus a great deal of energy on their restrictions on information and communication. (Do they block Wikipedia because of communication or information reasons?).
We don't know.
In that regard, the esteemed founder took a wisely netural and non-provocative course. In a country where there is no established freedom of speech, it may not be polite to assume that arguements based on local free speech concepts are valid over there. The UK however has a substantial English-speaking population, and likewise a tradition of emulating and deferring to American concepts of personal liberty etc.
Erm no we don't. We don't have a history of deferring to anyone.
The current case is of course an important and interesting anomaly, and its a good thing to see that Wikipedias users have used WP:ITN to properly feature an important story that American media has left alone, and which UK media lack the liberty to properly investigate.
We don't know that there are other posible reasons for the offcial secrets act kicking in.
Certainly I think the issue is best targeted to Wikisource, and I listed a request at Talk:Main Page to put the banner up. Im not being a hard on about it
- I think its appropriate that it generate discussion,
and it may be that as far as Public domain documents go, the Al Jazeera bombing memo might just be the most interesting source document in the world right now.
Public domain? I doubt it. Crown copyright perhaps.
-- geni
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Best thing is to make it a featured article, it will get on the front page fast.
Its been on the front page for two or three days now.
But I am in the UK so not like used to freedom or stuff so what do I know.
OK, I wasnt sure. Ive never been there. Ive heard you guys have lots of Starbucks' popping up though.
Stevertigo, the UK press normally ignore official
secrets act "gagging".
There is a public interest defence. Sometimes
someone goes to prison its true.
Thats good to know. I had thought all the brave people were here in the USA.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Erm no we don't. We don't have a history of
deferring to anyone.
OK, fine -- have it your way.
We don't know that there are other posible reasons
for the offcial secrets act kicking in.
Youre right -- there could be other valid reasons for suppressing a document which describes a conversation between public officials about committing terrorism against private citizens of a friendly state. We should just defer to the wisdom of the Krown.
Public domain? I doubt it. Crown copyright perhaps.
Well then she could just send us a takedown notice and we'll immediately obey, offering to polish the crown jewels if she likes as a peace offering.
Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:24, stevertigo wrote:
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Best thing is to make it a featured article, it will get on the front page fast.
Its been on the front page for two or three days now.
Yeah but no but. Previous poster wanted more publicity. Was just suggesting improving article to FA was best way...
But I am in the UK so not like used to freedom or stuff so what do I know.
OK, I wasnt sure. Ive never been there. Ive heard you guys have lots of Starbucks' popping up though.
Oh yes loads. Come and visit, you are very welcome.
Sorry, I find your tone of voice slightly hard to interpret by email, I think the ironing may be mixed up.
Stevertigo, the UK press normally ignore official
secrets act "gagging".
There is a public interest defence. Sometimes
someone goes to prison its true.
Thats good to know. I had thought all the brave people were here in the USA.
I am afraid that [[Official Secret Act]] is really really bad and doesnt reflect much of the importance. I did think the UK law articles were in a kind of ok state, but it seems not. IANAL though, so not sure I can help very much. Although [[Riot Act]] is equally bad I have mroe historical background.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Erm no we don't. We don't have a history of
deferring to anyone.
OK, fine -- have it your way.
We don't know that there are other posible reasons
for the offcial secrets act kicking in.
Youre right -- there could be other valid reasons for suppressing a document which describes a conversation between public officials about committing terrorism against private citizens of a friendly state. We should just defer to the wisdom of the Krown.
Most official discussions are not released. The US has not released it either. Can a transcript be obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act? The UK FoI version is not real.
Public domain? I doubt it. Crown copyright perhaps.
Well then she could just send us a takedown notice and we'll immediately obey, offering to polish the crown jewels if she likes as a peace offering.
Yes, get a copy and we can do that. As a republican I wont be offering to polish the crown jewels though.
Justinc
On 11/29/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Youre right -- there could be other valid reasons for suppressing a document which describes a conversation between public officials about committing terrorism against private citizens of a friendly state. We should just defer to the wisdom of the Krown.
You don't know that is all the document contains. It could for example disscuss submerine patrol patterns (logical if they were planning a cruise missile strike).
Well then she could just send us a takedown notice and we'll immediately obey, offering to polish the crown jewels if she likes as a peace offering.
Stevertigo
In keeping with normal policy we sould remove the copyvio as soon as we became aware of it. -- geni
On 28 Nov 2005, at 20:52, geni wrote:
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like, that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo." It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus, that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
The front page of wikipedia should not be used for campianing whatever the cause. We don't have a big notice on the front page when china banned as I fail to see a reason to put up a notice now.
Best thing is to make it a featured article, it will get on the front page fast.
But I am in the UK so not like used to freedom or stuff so what do I know.
Stevertigo, the UK press normally ignore official secrets act "gagging". There is a public interest defence. Sometimes someone goes to prison its true.
Justinc
I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.
And let's also remember that Wikipedia is a place full of contributors from all political and ideological backgrounds, all of which are welcome to contribute as long as they obey a few simple rules.
FF
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like, that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo." It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus, that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission,
Very well put.
Apart from being massively POV, it would also be original research. We should base our articles on verifiable material published in other reliable sources. We should not be publishing original documents ourselves. At best, it would be a matter for Wikisource.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old User:Capitalistroadster
On 11/29/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.
And let's also remember that Wikipedia is a place full of contributors from all political and ideological backgrounds, all of which are welcome to contribute as long as they obey a few simple rules.
FF
On 11/28/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like, that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put this little image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo." It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org site.
Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus, that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
Stevertigo Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak' when a guy uses it?
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Apart from being massively POV, it would also > be
original research.
We should base our articles on verifiable material
published in other reliable
sources.
Ah, another convenient reference to WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Its reporting on the nature of a document which is both wikinewsworthy and wikipedic. Anyway, the purpose was to generate some thinking on the issue, and to establish in pixels that the general consensus is to do whats right, and support doing whats right. I suppose this goes without saying.
But calling it "massively POV" [sic] is hardly fitting language for a document that (if verified by credentialled and loyal government sources) would seem destined to put the final nail in the coffin of a false political ideology. I suppose this goes without saying.
We should not be publishing original documents
ourselves.
At best, it would be a matter for Wikisource.
Well if thats your point, then we are only in disagreement about your low value judgement of "at best." AFAIK there is no wikisource mailing list, so we are discussing this issue here --even though it does fly into the territories of Wikipedia policy, as well as foundation policy and rhetoric.
Stevertigo The dagger-legend is, of course, a lie
__________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
stevertigo stated for the record:
But calling it "massively POV" [sic] is hardly fitting language for a document that (if verified by credentialled and loyal government sources) would seem destined to put the final nail in the coffin of a false political ideology. I suppose this goes without saying.
Going for the "irony thick and sticky enough to suck the boots right off your feet" award, are we?
- -- Sean Barrett | Oops, I forgot to download part of the Internet. sean@epoptic.org |
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Going for the "irony thick and sticky enough to suck
the boots right off
your feet" award, are we?
I was rather proud of the "UK has a substantial English-speaking population" bit, myself, but others are free to pick their own favorites. My own personal favorite remains this little piece of tutelage by Andy Lih re TCM :
It's fascinating that AC can accuse folks (who advocate a balance and coexistence of East and West) of "breathtaking ethnocentrism." At the same time, AC implies that only the West was capable of a scientific process in medicine. (And again, no sources or attribution for these views). I suppose for those thousands of years that TCM was practiced, there was no exploration into new substances, no evaluation of outcomes, no experimentation in quantities of doses, no conversation between practitioner and patient, and no observation that the patient was, well, dead or alive...
:) Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 29/11/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.
I have been not following the news at all for the last week or so, but...
The major issue with publishing militarially sensitive material in the UK is D-notices; for the Americans, these are basically standing requests from HMG that before detailed information is published on various issues - nuclear weapons, aspects of the security services, military operational plans - that "advice be sought". A polite warning of sensitive areas which would probably result in various legal controversy in order that it not all end in tears, so that someone can't say "Well, I didn't realise you didn't *want* me to publish the names of members of SIS..."
Officially, they have no legal standing, and are simply advisory; in practice it's a "voluntary code" which is followed most of the time, and it's understood that going against them is clearly seen as crossing the Rubicon. You might not wind up in court, but you'd certainly know you were dipping your toes in the shark pool. These have no legal force outside the UK barring in the sense of "a request through gritted teeth", and I have a vague recollection that OSA and DORA are really only applicable once someone's signed them - and I would hope any of our contributors who have are being sensible and restricting their writing to articles about kittens, just to be safe.
So "breaking the law" is debatable. But actively making a political point of the fact we're considering doing it? Oooh, that would be so not good and god no and ugh. WP:NOT a campaigning body; this would be a vastly more contentious issue on-list were it solely in the US, I suspect.
Fastfission is, as always, being sensible. I concur that, if this is significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it hosted around the world to refer to.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 11/29/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I concur that, if this is significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it hosted around the world to refer to.
This is in the end I think the proper "Wikipedia" solution to anything: write an article about the memo, the controversy, the attempt to stifle, hell even include some mainstream speculation about what its contents may be (properly attributed, of course).
FF
On 30/11/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I concur that, if this is significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it hosted around the world to refer to.
This is in the end I think the proper "Wikipedia" solution to anything: write an article about the memo, the controversy, the attempt to stifle, hell even include some mainstream speculation about what its contents may be (properly attributed, of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo No further comments, your honour. ;)
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]