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
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
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
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
On 20 May 2011 12:09, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com 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.
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.
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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
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.
-
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
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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
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
On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
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 were
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 20/05/2011 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.
___
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]
On 20 May 2011 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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
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 course, the
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 19:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 19:21, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
[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
On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org 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
On 20 May 2011 17:23, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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:
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 17:37, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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:
On 20 May 2011 22:22, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org 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
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
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
Huh? Why?
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
--
geni
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
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 risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder
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 risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
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...
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
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 geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
stamp
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
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 acts
[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).
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.
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 what
{{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 geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
On 21 May 2011 00:42, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com 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
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
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:52 AM, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com 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.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net 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
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 18:01, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
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
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
