It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been
published, then it is public.
If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project.
We routinely suppress disclosure of private information. When do the
details of an affair become public? And ho
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
>>> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
>>> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
>>> super-injunction inhibits those s
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
>> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
>> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
>> super-injunction inhibits those sources, t
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:52 AM, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> There are several ways of minimizing negative effects:
> 1. Display it for logged-in users only. This is especially useful for
> information concerning active Wikimedians, e.g. Wikimania, POTY, etc.
> 2. Reduce weight - don't display a b
> 2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
> argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
> defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
> super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively
> inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's im
On 21 May 2011 00:42, Wjhonson 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
{{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
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: R
"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 wha
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. Wh
[Posting wearing my battered free-speech (ex)activist hat, not
the Wikipedia-critic hat]
1) Stand-down a little - apparently Twitter is only being asked to
produce identity information, same as the Wikimedia Foundation has
been in other cases (under court order).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technol
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 ac
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton 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.
--
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 wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
>> stamp On private communication.
>>
>> The injunc
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton 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 multi
> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> > On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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 avoid
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...
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 wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instan
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 wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> On 20 May
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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
> publish
Huh? Why?
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
>
> That's not actually legal.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing l
> On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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
David Gerard writes:
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.
>
I've discussed this precise issue (i
> On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> Twitter are planning to open a London office:
>> http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twitter-open-uk-office-serve-commercial-needs/
>> This should be... interesting.
>
>
> Over the last several years, the UK libel l
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder 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/
> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating 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 t
on 5/20/11 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
> [Also posting to Bugzilla]
>
> According to the ops team, there are a number of separate and
> unrelated ops issues that have come up in the last few days:
>
> 1) Not all users are experiencing slowness, but a subset of users are.
>
> On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker 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 bec
On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris wrote:
> Twitter are planning to open a London office:
> http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalambulletin/article/1066031/twitter-open-uk-office-serve-commercial-needs/
> This should be... interesting.
Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have b
[Also posting to Bugzilla]
According to the ops team, there are a number of separate and
unrelated ops issues that have come up in the last few days:
1) Not all users are experiencing slowness, but a subset of users are.
There's no definite smoking gun, but the most likely cause are ongoing
issue
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 19:29, David Gerard wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder 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
> On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton 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 la
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton 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
>>
>
> 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 cour
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating 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
On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker 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 inj
Hello, everyone.
Today is the deadline to volunteer to serve on the Grant Advisory
Committee[1]. If you were interested but forgot to actually apply, please
do so within the coming 24 hours.
Thanks,
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Commit
On 20/05/2011 19:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>> 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!
>
I wouldn't count on that DBE being in the post.
___
> 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 countr
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
On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder 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
> 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
>> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating 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
> handle
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
jurisdi
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".
> On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating 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 i
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating 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 re
>
> > 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
On 20 May 2011 12:09, Sarah 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/
> 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-
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-privacy
Sa
Hi Tobias,
thank you for bringing this up. The thought had crossed my mind too.
I'm glad that the election banner seems to appear only when logged in - it
is absolutely useless for people who only read articles, even for only 3
days.
More annoying was the POTY competition - this type of cross wi
Hello Tobias,
on zh-wp we use our local central notice quite often and in my opinion
it is accepted by most users. We use it to announce admin election, vote
for policies and other issues like quality initiatives or call for
articles. Most of these activities are on village pump, but most users
52 matches
Mail list logo
