A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-...
Sarah
A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-...
Sarah
Oversighters have been diligently suppressing this stuff. Hopefully none of our money will be wasted on this. Obviously superinjunctions are totally over the top and not sustainable, but it is not our job to straighten out the High Court.
Fred
On 20 May 2011 12:09, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-...
Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has worked.
Risker/Anne
A footballer protected by one of the British "superinjunctions" is suing Twitter and persons unknown after he was alleged on Twitter to have had an affair. Something that could have repercussions for Wikipedia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-...
Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has worked.
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
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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
Note that the review into injunctions published today says that parliamentary privilege may not be enough to protect the media (let alone "non-media" like mere websites). I foresee this coming to a head in the next few weeks or months, but hopefully without WMF or WMUK being sued - as Fred says, we'd rather not waste our money (even when US law is clear) on defending against such actions.
J.
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
The action is in the U.K. The "publisher" fiction is American law. It might come into play if an attempt is made in U.S. courts to collect any judgment.
Fred
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 ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...?
In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdiction you were in when you took the alleged breaking action, or 4/ the ability of local legal process to access you, in deciding what's legally actionable?
Lawyers welcomed :) Curiosity and enlightenment more than anything.
FT2
I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...?
In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdiction you were in when you took the alleged breaking action, or 4/ the ability of local legal process to access you, in deciding what's legally actionable?
Lawyers welcomed :) Curiosity and enlightenment more than anything.
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 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think any user who uses Twitter to publish information in the U.K. may potentially be liable.
The jurisdictional issues impact the users. Suing Twitter is unlikely to go very far. It is *possible* they may be able to do something to Facebook, who I believe have business presence in the UK. Suing WMUK is unlikely to affect the behaviour of WMF, any more than the several suits against WMDE have affected the behaviour of WMF.
I think our editors will continue to do the right thing concerning the subjects of BLPs. And that we do this is IMO very important to practical opinions concerning Wikipedia: that is, "Wikipedia" (WMF) is not legally liable, but tries to do the *right thing*. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism or a gossip rag. That IMO is the most important *practical* protection of Wikipedia's good name.
- d.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 19:29, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think any user who uses Twitter to publish information in the U.K. may potentially be liable.
The jurisdictional issues impact the users. Suing Twitter is unlikely to go very far. It is *possible* they may be able to do something to Facebook, who I believe have business presence in the UK.
Twitter are planning to open a London office:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twit...
This should be... interesting.
On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Twitter are planning to open a London office: http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twit... This should be... interesting.
Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have been a strong consideration in WMF carefully maintaining *no* local business presence in the UK. The legal environment here is toxic for anyone who doesn't have to put up with it.
- d.
On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Twitter are planning to open a London office: http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twit... This should be... interesting.
Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have been a strong consideration in WMF carefully maintaining *no* local business presence in the UK. The legal environment here is toxic for anyone who doesn't have to put up with it.
- d.
Failed state.
Fred
On 20/05/2011 18:06, FT2 wrote:
I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...?
In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdiction you were in when you took the alleged breaking action, or 4/ the ability of local legal process to access you, in deciding what's legally actionable?
Lawyers welcomed :) Curiosity and enlightenment more than anything.
One might want to factor in a Google News Case in Belgium that dealt with which laws apply where: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/05/17/is-google-news-legal/
Also if it is found that WMF is negligent they may consider any senior member of WMF resident in London to be personally liable.
On 20/05/2011 18:06, FT2 wrote:
I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...?
In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdiction you were in when you took the alleged breaking action, or 4/ the ability of local legal process to access you, in deciding what's legally actionable?
Lawyers welcomed :) Curiosity and enlightenment more than anything.
One might want to factor in a Google News Case in Belgium that dealt with which laws apply where: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/05/17/is-google-news-legal/
Also if it is found that WMF is negligent they may consider any senior member of WMF resident in London to be personally liable.
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, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
One might want to factor in a Google News Case in Belgium that dealt with which laws apply where: http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/05/17/is-google-news-legal/
On 20/05/2011 23:14, FT2 wrote:
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......
Central to that is the Viacom argument as to whether Google is a service provider or a content provider.
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/04/is-youtube-a-service-provider-or-content-pro...
In the Belgium case Google were doing all the copying at their own volition.
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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
Then, of course, the material will be in the article even if there is still an outstanding superinjunction
What we've actualy got however is an argument over what is considered a reputable news source.
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
Heh, what news do you read!
Then, of course, the material will be in the article even if there is
still
an outstanding superinjunction
What we've actualy got however is an argument over what is considered a reputable news source.
Almost all of the content is trivial tabloid content of little interest... the injunctions give it a minor twist but probably not enough to invalidate the other BLP issues. So other than if the financial times splashed it across their front page I doubt any of the stuff hidden by super-injunction is worth having in the articles.
Tom/ErrantX
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com 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
Heh, what news do you read!
[[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.
Almost all of the content is trivial tabloid content of little interest... the injunctions give it a minor twist but probably not enough to invalidate the other BLP issues. So other than if the financial times splashed it across their front page I doubt any of the stuff hidden by super-injunction is worth having in the articles.
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.
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com 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
Heh, what news do you read!
[[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.
Almost all of the content is trivial tabloid content of little interest... the injunctions give it a minor twist but probably not enough to invalidate the other BLP issues. So other than if the financial times splashed it across their front page I doubt any of the stuff hidden by super-injunction is worth having in the articles.
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
Yes, that was my asessment too :-)
Tom
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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
Then, of course, the material will be in the article even if there is still an outstanding superinjunction
What we've actualy got however is an argument over what is considered a reputable news source.
-- 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
On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has worked.
Questionable. Oh we've kept the better known cases under wraps but oversight and rev del but the lesser known cases and the flat out false ones (want to damage a footballer's reputation? hint that they have a super injuction) we haven't been so good at keeping up with. The pattern of reverts and rev dels is pretty obvious if you know what to look for as is the suspicious traffic bumps.
Perhaps ironicaly the number of false accusations has reached the point that if we did care about BLP issues the responcible thing to do would be to publish most of the 53 on the main page.
On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as someone who's been in the middle of this exact issue from the Wikipedia perspective, edits similar to the one described to have been made on Twitter were removed multiple times from our own site over an extended period: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has worked.
Questionable. Oh we've kept the better known cases under wraps but oversight and rev del but the lesser known cases and the flat out false ones (want to damage a footballer's reputation? hint that they have a super injuction) we haven't been so good at keeping up with. The pattern of reverts and rev dels is pretty obvious if you know what to look for as is the suspicious traffic bumps.
Perhaps ironicaly the number of false accusations has reached the point that if we did care about BLP issues the responcible thing to do would be to publish most of the 53 on the main page.
-- geni
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
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information?
Fred
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information?
What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at risk.
Risker/Anne
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 risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information?
What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at risk.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the User:Oversight feed.
Exactly what is and isn't considered a private communication is a complex area though.
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 geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the User:Oversight feed.
Exactly what is and isn't considered a private communication is a complex area though.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
It's not publishing the info. It's fine.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing?
The point is to stifle mass media.
That doesn't mean that they are the only people the law applies to.
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.
From a technical perspective the litigant may legitimately consider you
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 geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
It's not publishing the info. It's fine.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing?
The point is to stifle mass media.
That doesn't mean that they are the only people the law applies to.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
{{fact}} I dispute that private communications are public.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing?
-----Original Message----- From: geni geniice@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:34 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
It's not publishing the info. It's fine.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a postcard counts as publishing?
The point is to stifle mass media.
That doesn't mean that they are the only people the law applies to.
On 21 May 2011 00:42, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
{{fact}} I dispute that private communications are public.
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
"Publish" means to make public. To make available to the public. Telling your buddies in the locker room is not "publishing".
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the User:Oversight feed.
Exactly what is and isn't considered a private communication is a complex area though.
-----Original Message----- From: geni geniice@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the User:Oversight feed.
Exactly what is and isn't considered a private communication is a complex area though.
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 risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information?
What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at risk.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the purposes of supressing it :-)
Tom Morton
A few years ago, I would have said the same about communicating the info for the purposes of free press.
--Dan
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
What on earth is illegal about assisting the project in avoiding publishing defamatory information?
What Geni means is that if he (as a UK resident) identified something that violated the superinjunction, emailing Oversight would be sufficient for him to violate the superinjunection. I am not certain that is 100% correct, if he does not name any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at risk.
Risker/Anne
Even the U.K. has not formally enacted Catch 22.
Fred
Huh? Why?
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/20/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
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.
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
On 21 May 2011 14:39, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com 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?
en:wp has User:Oversight, administered by the Arbcom - its only purpose is so you can use the wiki's "email this user" functionality to alert the oversighters to seriously problematic material on the wiki.
- d.
Marco Chiesa 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?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist prohibits those names across all Wikimedia wikis.
MZMcBride
MZMcBride, 21/05/2011 22:25:
Marco Chiesa 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?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist prohibits those names across all Wikimedia wikis.
But sysops can override the title blacklist.
Nemo
On 21 May 2011 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
MZMcBride, 21/05/2011 22:25:
Marco Chiesa 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?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist prohibits those names across all Wikimedia wikis.
But sysops can override the title blacklist.
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 16:01, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
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.)
A huge percentage of the BLP problems I've seen in the last six years have been vanity articles. Raising the notability bar would help to resolve that.
For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation or not?
I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be interested in hearing from OTRS people how pervasive it is in terms of what's reported to them. Does anyone keep figures?
Sarah
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation or not?
I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be interested in hearing from OTRS people how pervasive it is in terms of what's reported to them. Does anyone keep figures?
Sarah
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@wikimedia.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
For those who deal with the BLP queue on OTRS, how serious is the problem of BLP attack pages, whether rising to the level of defamation or not?
I know the problem exists -- anyone who edits can see it -- but I'd be interested in hearing from OTRS people how pervasive it is in terms of what's reported to them. Does anyone keep figures?
I asked Christine to do a quick scan, what follows is her response:
*There isn't an exact "BLP" queue in OTRS; there is one for overall quality (called, what else, Quality) which is where a lot of the BLP concerns go, as they are quality issues.
Of the current tickets in the queue, not quite half are BLP related (96 out of 209).
Of those BLP tickets, about 15% of them mention being attacked/articles being biased or slanted. I didn't do any deep research into whether the accounts are true or not; this is merely the perception of the person writing in, which is the most relevant measure for the topic currently under discussion.
* *Also of those BLP tickets, the same percentage specifically mention libelous information, slander, etc. * * * Hope that helps, pb
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
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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
Nobody is hacking your accounts, Dror.
You used exactly the same phrases in complaining about this as the IP did complaining about it.
Do you assert that you are not that IP editor?
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:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamirdqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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
Nobody is hacking your accounts, Dror.
You used exactly the same phrases in complaining about this as the IP did complaining about it.
Do you assert that you are not that IP editor?
I would like to request that Dror be moderated on Foundation-L. This is not an appropriate use of Foundation-L, Dror has one of the more extensive sockpuppetry histories of any Wikipedia abuse case ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investig... ) and is using identical phrasing in comments here as the IP editor who is now IP range blocked, which aligns with prior comments he has historically made. He has in private email responded to my question as to whether he is the IP editor by demanding to know what connection I have with Supreme Deliciousness.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamirdqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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
Nobody is hacking your accounts, Dror.
You used exactly the same phrases in complaining about this as the IP did complaining about it.
Do you assert that you are not that IP editor?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to request that Dror be moderated on Foundation-L. This is not an appropriate use of Foundation-L, Dror has one of the more extensive sockpuppetry histories of any Wikipedia abuse case (
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investig... ) and is using identical phrasing in comments here as the IP editor who is now IP range blocked, which aligns with prior comments he has historically made. He has in private email responded to my question as to whether he is the IP editor by demanding to know what connection I have with Supreme Deliciousness.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamirdqamir@bezeqint.net
wrote:
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
Nobody is hacking your accounts, Dror.
You used exactly the same phrases in complaining about this as the IP did complaining about it.
Do you assert that you are not that IP editor?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:07 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
I would like to request that Dror be moderated on Foundation-L. This is not an appropriate use of Foundation-L, Dror has one of the more extensive sockpuppetry histories of any Wikipedia abuse case (
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investig... ) and is using identical phrasing in comments here as the IP editor who is now IP range blocked, which aligns with prior comments he has historically made. He has in private email responded to my question as to whether he is the IP editor by demanding to know what connection I have with Supreme Deliciousness.
I'm not sure moderation is appropriate at this point. We try to keep dialogue relatively open on foundation-l (possibly to our detriment, but I feel that it's important to have a place somewhere within Wikimedia where open dialogue can be raised, even amongst unpopular users).
That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever. It is common when investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted users, so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to avoid detection. I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the claim that someone is stalking Dror. If there is no stalking, then this is not a foundation issue.
2011/5/22 Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever. It is common when investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted users, so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to avoid detection. I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the claim that someone is stalking Dror. If there is no stalking, then this is not a foundation issue.
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
Hoi, Agreed. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 May 2011 10:38, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever. It is common when investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted
users,
so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to
avoid
detection. I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the claim that someone is stalking Dror. If there is no stalking, then this
is
not a foundation issue.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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:
Hoi, Agreed. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 May 2011 10:38, Amir E. Aharoniamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral315@gmail.com:
That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever. It is common when investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted
users,
so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to
avoid
detection. I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the claim that someone is stalking Dror. If there is no stalking, then this
is
not a foundation issue.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
Tom
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
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
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
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
Yeh :-) sorry about that
Tom
On 22 May 2011, at 12:26, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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&am...
Dror K
בתאריך 22/05/11 14:00, ציטוט Thomas Morton:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Amir E. Aharoniamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Mortonmorton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes. That was me, I notified him after asking on the list if anyone else had.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 15:01, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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&am...
Dror K
בתאריך 22/05/11 14:00, ציטוט Thomas Morton:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common
courtesy.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Amir E. Aharoniamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Mortonmorton.thomas@googlemail.com:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential
given
the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Dror K,
Don't get me wrong; I have no knowledge of this dispute (other than you seem to have been blocked for disrupting Wikipedia) and no real interest in which side is accurate (though being topic banned and socking is not doing you many favours).
But I am interested in this specific issue. It appears you have read the words "private information" and construed that this means personal details like your name, location - or that your accounts (Wikipedia, email, or otherwise) have been "hacked". These are *extremely *serious allegations, and likely to be unfounded.
Private information almost certainly relates to editing habits that give away associations to the account "DrorK" - or previously disclosed IP associations. There is nothing illegal in having this information and using it to enforce this block (in line with policy). Remember; we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.
If you have *firm *evidence that SD holds private information of another sort, that he is divulging to people, this is definitely not the place to bring it up. And having done so, and the way you have done it, does not reflect well either.
I'm not suggesting you have made these allegations maliciously, I am sure it is a misunderstanding. But you should pause to consider the seriousness of what you are alleging prior to doing so, because this is a public mailing list.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 14:40, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECHObviously you have your normal legal rights (i.e. if someone does something illegal, then it is a courts matter). But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 16:19, Pronoein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit :
we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.
Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank you for your answer. I discovered that Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy[1] in the link you gave, that's encouraging. :)
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
Le 22/05/2011 12:23, Thomas Morton a écrit :
Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FREESPEECHObviously you have your normal legal rights (i.e. if someone does something illegal, then it is a courts matter). But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 16:19, Pronoein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit :
we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.
Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit :
we have no "rights" to participate in Wikipedia.
Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia?
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speechYes it is. "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so." "As a private website, Wikipedia has the legal right to block, ban, or otherwise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its content, with or even without reason." When you participate "your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToForkright to fork and your http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeaveright to leave".
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 16:19 22-05-2011, you wrote:
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton a écrit : > we have no > "rights" to participate in Wikipedia. Regardless of the debate from where it comes, is this an accurate decription of the rules and policies of Wikipedia? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
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:
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging).
Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 21:22, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
I asked Christine to do a quick scan, what follows is her response:
*There isn't an exact "BLP" queue in OTRS; there is one for overall quality (called, what else, Quality) which is where a lot of the BLP concerns go, as they are quality issues.
Of the current tickets in the queue, not quite half are BLP related (96 out of 209).
Of those BLP tickets, about 15% of them mention being attacked/articles being biased or slanted. I didn't do any deep research into whether the accounts are true or not; this is merely the perception of the person writing in, which is the most relevant measure for the topic currently under discussion.
*Also of those BLP tickets, the same percentage specifically mention libelous information, slander, etc. *
Hope that helps, pb
Thank you, Philippe, this is very helpful.
Would it make sense to set up a separate "living persons" queue to make it easier to keep track?
The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very useful.
Sarah
On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very useful.
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.
From the *workload* perspective, however, whilst BLPs only make up
~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!
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very useful.
... 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...
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
My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:32:06 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 16:03, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very useful.
... 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...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22 May 2011 23:03, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
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.
FWIW: when I talk to press, etc. about this, I say "I can't promise a particular result, but I can promise someone will take it seriously." Which I suspect is what people hope for, really. Remember that we are big, scary and mysterious from the outside.
- d.
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
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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.
My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 00:40:10 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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.
-Mark
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 delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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.
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 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
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 delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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 <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
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 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
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 delirium@hackish.org wrote:
On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Regarding the original point about superinjunctions, an MP has named Ryan Giggs in the House of Commons and this is being widely reported in the British media.
The superinjunction will be gone by the end of the afternoon.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Video-MP-Names-Footballer-At-Centre...
Regarding the original point about superinjunctions, an MP has named Ryan Giggs in the House of Commons and this is being widely reported in the British media.
The superinjunction will be gone by the end of the afternoon.
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 Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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 discussed this idea with FT2 at length a little over a year ago on Skype, a couple hours I think. This was while I was facilitating the Living Persons task force on strategy (plug here[1]).
Our resources can only stretch so far, and in my opinion, as expressed previously in this thread, is that contacting websites/press agents/subjects directly would create much more discord than to reward. The noted issues with explaining, now after invitation, how Wikipedia works and what you can't do after we've invited you to do it is much more probable than successful resolution. Our solutions must be internal, from the Board and the communities.
1. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_persons Still awaiting board approval.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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 discussed this idea with FT2 at length a little over a year ago on Skype, a couple hours I think. This was while I was facilitating the Living Persons task force on strategy (plug here[1]).
Our resources can only stretch so far, and in my opinion, as expressed previously in this thread, is that contacting websites/press agents/subjects directly would create much more discord than to reward. The noted issues with explaining, now after invitation, how Wikipedia works and what you can't do after we've invited you to do it is much more probable than successful resolution. Our solutions must be internal, from the Board and the communities.
awaiting board approval.
-- ~Keegan
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.
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.
I suppose that if your a notable figure... you probably take a look to see if a Wikipedia article exists... and even money says you won't like what you find.
Other subject don't quite have the "personal" connection :)
Tom
On 22 May 2011 23:03, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 22 May 2011 19:58, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The BLP problem is a very divisive one on the English Wikipedia, but it's not entirely clear how grounded it is in fact. Sometimes we're told OTRS is overwhelmed by the number of BLP complaints, but no figures are given.
Some hard stats -- X number of complaints concerning Y number of articles within time T, of which Z were actionable -- would be very useful.
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.
From the *workload* perspective, however, whilst BLPs only make up ~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@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 21/05/2011 23:09, Sarah wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:01, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
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.)
A huge percentage of the BLP problems I've seen in the last six years have been vanity articles. Raising the notability bar would help to resolve that.
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.
Well, the CTB Superinjunction is now broken in a number of places on en.wikipedia.
So there we go.
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
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I rather doubt that is their legal position. There is past clase law suggesting that really wont work. More practically they are likely betting the CTB thing wont last beyond Monday on the basis that at this point there are hermits in central wales who know who CTB is.
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I rather doubt that is their legal position. There is past clase law suggesting that really wont work. More practically they are likely betting the CTB thing wont last beyond Monday on the basis that at this point there are hermits in central wales who know who CTB is.
-- geni
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 May 2011 17:22, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I rather doubt that is their legal position. There is past clase law suggesting that really wont work. More practically they are likely betting the CTB thing wont last beyond Monday on the basis that at this point there are hermits in central wales who know who CTB is.
I agree. The only legal argument that stands any chance of success is that CTB's identity is now common knowledge so the injunction is moot. Whether that argument will succeed or not, I don't know, although there's a good chance it will never actually get as far as a day in court.
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
For putting gossip into Wikipedia, yes; the case of information of great public importance being protected by a "superinjunction" issued by an outlaw court is not being considered.
Fred
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
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 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
Jimbo said the Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions?
BBC radio4 5pm news. Didn't hear the full interview as I'd just parked up for comfort break.
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
Jimbo said the Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions?
BBC radio4 5pm news. Didn't hear the full interview as I'd just parked up for comfort break.
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.
On 22 May 2011 20:39, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
Jimbo said the Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions?
BBC radio4 5pm news. Didn't hear the full interview as I'd just parked up for comfort break.
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.
Well, whatever he meant, it isn't his decision. The WMF's legal dept has recently published their draft policies, which includes one on subpoenas [1]. It basically says that, unless lives are at stake, they will only comply with US subpoenas. For US subpoenas, they'll decide whether to comply with or contest them based on the facts presented to them. Of course, if they contest a US subpoena unsuccessfully, they have no choice but to comply with it.
1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies#Subpoenas
Well, whatever he meant, it isn't his decision. The WMF's legal dept has recently published their draft policies, which includes one on subpoenas [1]. It basically says that, unless lives are at stake, they will only comply with US subpoenas. For US subpoenas, they'll decide whether to comply with or contest them based on the facts presented to them. Of course, if they contest a US subpoena unsuccessfully, they have no choice but to comply with it.
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
On 22/05/2011 21:04, Fred Bauder wrote:
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.
"The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash": an article where paragraph after paragraph is ... wait for it ... gossip.
My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com
Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 22:46:00 To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On 22/05/2011 21:04, Fred Bauder wrote:
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.
"The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash": an article where paragraph after paragraph is ... wait for it ... gossip.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
My blog is my hobby http://sdgunung03.blogspot.com Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:39:46 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
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 ;-)
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.
Jimbo said the Foundation would hand over the IP addresses of Wikipedians if asked by a British court because of these injunctions?
BBC radio4 5pm news. Didn't hear the full interview as I'd just parked up for comfort break.
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.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org