On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 08:52 -0700, iain.macdonald@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I have no idea; but, I will say that the Scottish judiciary, and legal profession in general, is widely incredulous at the idea England considers it appropriate. Therefore, I find it unlikely in the extreme that such could be achieved.
Considering Fred-The-Shred is yet another super-injunction user, I think the Scottish judiciary would relish telling a load of these celebs and sundry super-rich to get knotted.
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Note that 75,000 are alleged to have tweeted the name. Where as the Wikipedia entry was edited by a handful at most.
"We cannot put 75,000 people in prison". Indeed, and Wikipedia editors should take note...... (and yes I know that the servers are outside the UK and the publisher is not UK organisation).
Suggestion: modify the living people rules..... since "you cannot libel the dead".
Gordo
Suggestion: modify the living people rules..... since "you cannot libel the dead".
What modification did you have in mind, out of interest?
I'm also quite glad it's turned out to be a Twitter story rather than a Wikipedia story.
Chris
On 25/05/2011 09:53, Chris Keating wrote:
Suggestion: modify the living people rules..... since "you cannot libel the dead".What modification did you have in mind, out of interest?
I'm also quite glad it's turned out to be a Twitter story rather than a Wikipedia story.
Chris
Admin only edited?
Gordo
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Although the original Telegraph journalist/editor didn't quote it, I did say in talking to the journalist that UK editors would be liable personally for edits they made :-)
My favourite UK commentary:
http://newsthump.com/2011/05/17/ryan-giggs-not-doing-anything-even-remotely-...
- d.
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 22:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Although the original Telegraph journalist/editor didn't quote it, I did say in talking to the journalist that UK editors would be liable personally for edits they made :-)
For future reference:
_Wiki editors in England and Wales_ - provided the super-injunction holder has not been granted corresponding restraint by the Scottish Courts.
Legal advice provided to Wikinewsies indicates they'd have a great deal of trouble getting that from the courts here - or prosecuting because someone broke some silly English judge's ruling.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org