Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia- ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
It's also in "This Is London":
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23778384-wikipedia- told-to-help-track-blackmailer.do
Mike
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia- ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
It's also in "This Is London":
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23778384-wikipedia- told-to-help-track-blackmailer.do
Mike
Has this been spiked?
On 2 Dec 2009, at 16:20, michael west wrote:
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia- ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
It's also in "This Is London":
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23778384-wikipedia- told-to-help-track-blackmailer.do
Mike
Has this been spiked?
What do you mean by "spiked"?
Mike
On 02/12/2009, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia- ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
It's also in "This Is London":
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23778384-wikipedia- told-to-help-track-blackmailer.do
Mike
Has this been spiked?
oops the links fell out of gmail http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia-ordered-by... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23778384-wikipedia-told-to-he...
Michael Peel wrote:
Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia- ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
Worth noting what is at [[wmf:Privacy policy#Access to and release of personally identifiable information]]:
"Release: Policy on Release of Data
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement,"
etc. While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the first instance of that clause being invoked.
Charles
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the first instance of that clause being invoked.
Yes, but the Telegraph is a British newspaper, so all other instances are not noteworthy by default :-)
Cheers, Magnus
The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy extensively.
2009/12/2 Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com:
The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy extensively.
Seems reasonable. Someone was being a [[WP:DICK]] of the first order. Turned out to have meatspace consequences. WMF demanded a court order before turning over IPs (while making it very clear that it didn't view itself as subject to UK jurisdiction). Court order was obtained.
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released...
Mike
2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released...
From the Telegraph article:
"The judge, who said the amendment had been taken down once a complaint was made, ordered that the mother and child must not be identified in reports on the case but refused to extend anonymity to Wikimedia Foundation Inc. "
2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released...
Mike
Section 10
# As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted.
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:53, geni wrote:
2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released...
Mike
Section 10
# As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted.
Ah; I see. I should have read the judgement closer. ;-)
(I don't believe what I read in the papers if there's a primary source... ;-) )
Mike
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released...
Section 10
# As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted.
Paragraph 11 of the judgment seems to imply that it was the applicant who wanted anonymity for WMF, the respondent, while the WMF was entirely open about it. Perhaps the applicant was concerned that someone would be able to work out which article was involved and therefore obtain a copy of the edits in question. Note the following section (paras 13-32) where the applicant wants to stop the court providing information to a non-party.
Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is involved I would hope the edits were oversighted since the court clearly considered the issue was substantial enough to grant the Norwich Pharmacal order itself. Presumably the foundation knows and can act.
----- "Sam Blacketer" sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is involved I would hope the edits were oversighted
They were .
since the court clearly considered the issue was substantial enough to grant the Norwich Pharmacal order itself. Presumably the foundation knows and can act.
They do and have.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey wrote:
----- "Sam Blacketer" sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is
involved I would hope the edits were oversighted
They were.
When did they start answering whether an oversight have taken place?
KTC
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the first instance of that clause being invoked.
Yes, but the Telegraph is a British newspaper, so all other instances are not noteworthy by default :-)
Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't instantly have the facts (some of what I know about this might be ArbCom-related and so privileged).
Charles
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't instantly have the facts (some of what I know about this might be ArbCom-related and so privileged).
Never mind the legal technicalities, I'm still snorting coffee over my desk at the bit that says:
'The open nature of the site has led to embarrassing instances in which pages have been edited to contain false information. Tony Blair’s entry was once edited to state that his middle name was “Whoop-de-do’’.'
I bloody love Wikipedia, I do.
Bod Notbod wrote:
Never mind the legal technicalities, I'm still snorting coffee over my desk at the bit that says:
'The open nature of the site has led to embarrassing instances in which pages have been edited to contain false information. Tony Blair’s entry was once edited to state that his middle name was “Whoop-de-do’’.'
I bloody love Wikipedia, I do.
You misunderstand. That's the bit the Telegraph puts in to assure its readers that WP is not to be taken seriously (rather than, for example, point out that WP has 100 times as many readers as it does).
Charles
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 +0000, Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't instantly have the facts (some of what I know about this might be ArbCom-related and so privileged).
Never mind the legal technicalities, I'm still snorting coffee over my desk at the bit that says:
'The open nature of the site has led to embarrassing instances in which pages have been edited to contain false information. Tony Blair’s entry was once edited to state that his middle name was “Whoop-de-do’’.'
I bloody love Wikipedia, I do.
If you have a twitter account, might want to follow these guys then...
FakeAPStylebook Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should be referred to as "he" despite being a hermaphroditic alien reptoid.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org