Gordon, no offence, but wtf?
Can we try to keep discussions on this list at least tangentially relevant to
issues related to Wikimedia UK?
Harry
From: Gordon Joly
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012, 21:29
Subject: Re: [Wikimedi
We've been discussing just that in the office - however, the general
profile of donations to WMUK means that we're not really affected by the
cap on charitable giving. The vast majority of people who donate give less
than £20 - there's just an awful lot of people who do so.
Richard Symonds
Wikimed
On 29/04/12 13:12, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Not quite carte blanche. Surely "such charitable purposes" does limit
them to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable
in UK law.
WSC
This reminds me on the recent proposals of the UK Government to put a
cap on charitable giving,
On 29/04/12 13:57, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just to clarify, Gordon wasn't quoting WMUK's objects.
So true. I was a bit off topic.
Sorry about that!
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/li
Thought I might give you some thoughts on this wet day.
It depends what you mean by a role account.
An account name, even if an apparently real name, is just a
pseudonym in Wikipedia terms - we are not allowed to consider the
real person behind the account (I wo
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things
> underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI
> without revealing who they are or putting things in thei
>I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like >Monmouth Museum.
Well the community is pretty sure about that, if you want to change that I
suggest you start with an RFC. Personally I'm not annoyed by not for
profits using promotional names and happ
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a
> negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
> and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. E
For me the difference that matters is that they are part of the movement,
WMF and WMUK in accounts denote staff editors. Communicating that is
something I see as internal communication. There are lots of ways in which
we allow internal communication to do things that we would not allow
external org
On 29 April 2012 15:23, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
> usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
> promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
> clients criminal records sh
I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a
negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
it i
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word.
>
By the way, I do think you've hit the nail on the head here.
Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau.
Is a user name like "MonmouthMuseumWales" "promotional"?
You could equally argue that it is transparent. And it is just this sort of
transparency which we demand from the Bell Pottingers of this world (and
crucify them for if we find them editing as "John Smith", without telling
us who they work f
We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and
promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections
are different.
As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes
there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not allowin
On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
>
> 1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any one
> of them can "say it wasn't them". If we are so careless about one half of
> edits made to Wikipedia, d
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> > there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.
>
> Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certi
On 29 April 2012 13:46, Deryck Chan wrote:
> On this issue I would argue along the same lines as I did on accepting
> in-kind donations: We have trustees for a reason - to exercise their human
> wisdom on things that are not absolutely black and white! If they aren't
> given the freedom to pursue
On 29 April 2012 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:
> In any case, role accounts are in all practical terms regarded merely
> an accountability issue these days. Which is probably why no page goes
> into detail on the copyright matter.
It also seems quite at odds with the fact that we *do* allow and
assis
On 29 April 2012 13:30, Chris Keating wrote:
>
> Not quite carte blanche. Surely "such charitable purposes" does limit them
>> to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
>>
>>
> Well, quite!
>
> The main purpose of Trustees is to make sure the organisation only spe
On 29 April 2012 13:14, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
> > mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com)>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> Not quite carte blanche. Surely "such charitable purposes" does limit them
> to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
>
>
Well, quite!
The main purpose of Trustees is to make sure the organisation only spends
money in pursuit of its charitable objectives. Which
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
> mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com)>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> > does say it is a copyright matter; but the page lin
Not quite carte blanche. Surely "such charitable purposes" does limit them
to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
WSC
On 29 April 2012 11:20, Gordon Joly wrote:
>
> In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
>
>
> THE TRUSTEES S
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
> does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
> to spell that out. Perhaps it should.
>
> Charles
As I understand it, there used to be
On 29 April 2012 02:17, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal
> issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to
> remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a trawl through
> all the app
I dont know whether this is what Richard and his friend were
discussing, but the MonmouthMuseumWales RFC has closed
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=489718366#MonmouthMuseumWales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rewardin
On 29/04/12 11:20, Gordon Joly wrote:
In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
THE TRUSTEES SHALL HOLD THE TRUST FUND AND ITS INCOME UPON TRUST TO
APPLY THEM FOR SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL IN THEIR
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION FROM TIME TO TIME THINK F
I can't imagine a good rationale for a role account. Many of us have
legitimate socks as open wifi accounts or demonstration accounts (such
as my vanilla user:Faelig to show what a "normal" account logged in
looks like) and accounts like user:Jon Davies (WMUK) seem suitable and
sensible without nee
In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
THE TRUSTEES SHALL HOLD THE TRUST FUND AND ITS INCOME UPON TRUST TO
APPLY THEM FOR SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL IN THEIR
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION FROM TIME TO TIME THINK FIT.
Wow. Carte blanche.
Gordo
I'm with Thomas Dalton on this. If we allow role accounts then sooner or
later we will get edit wars by two different people logged into the same
account, disputes about U1 an G7 deletions where one person used an account
to create something and another user of the same account then gets upset.
But
30 matches
Mail list logo
