On 29 April 2011 00:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

As it's a paralysingly slow news week (multiple papers running thousand-word articles on weather for the Royal Wedding?), the story was then cut'n'pasted by every other newspaper, desperate for something to print. The quotes were directly nicked too, my phone hasn't rung since with anyone else actually asking for a comment.

So I'd say this is this season's August/September story, just a few months early.

Perhaps. However it's pretty clear that the media wants to sink super-injunctions and "they don't work due to the internet" is the latest attack line. Going by the size of the traffic spikes on certain articles I'd say they were only moderately successful.

On 29 April 2011 21:42, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

Quote: A spokesman for Wikipedia said that if the allegations were posted repeatedly the pages could be "locked" to limit those who could edit them. He added, that, because Wikipedia was based in the United States, it was not bound by the injunctions..... Who was that?

Me, as I said. He asked if Wikipedia could be sued. I said that as a US organisation it wasn't affected by UK injunctions, though UK based editors were, but that we didn't put stuff in if it wasn't really well referenced anyway.

As I said, he picked a few sentences out of half an hour's careful explanation. Possibly I should have just told him to bugger off, but that doesn't generally work out well except when they're well known to be an arsehole.

- d.

On 9 May 2011 08:29, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

Twitter seems to have eclipsed Wikipedia?

http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper

Gordo

Twitter have raised the art of getting your name in the media on a regular basis beyond even second life at its peak and apple. They have some very good marketing people.

Still if it gets people to stop spamming us it's a definite plus. I'm sure the AACS encryption key issue didn't last this long. Perhaps we should just give up and issue an IP over wikipedia edit protocol.

On 20 May 2011 22:17, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:32, geni wrote:

...

...

http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper

And now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-...

Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs

Andrew (BabelStone)

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 18:40 +0100, Gordon Joly wrote:

On 21/05/2011 09:30, Andrew West wrote:

...

Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:

The affair is outed!

The Daily Fail better hope that twitter collapses the Super Injunction nonsense. We're working on multiple media breaches, including one or two by them, that've spend a brief time online before being bunged in the memory hole.

Obviously, there's a need for Wikinews to await feedback from the AG on this stuff - not go setting up twitter accounts that might get hit with a Norwich Pharmacal Order. ;-)

[You didn't, did you, Iain?]