On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Charles As a consequence of various
sustained dirty tricks campaigns, no doubt
all intelligent people editing Wikipedia pseudonymously, and for whom
revelation of their real-life identity would be a disaster, simply
stopped doing that.
Rightly so, no? You're
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Charles As a consequence of various
sustained dirty tricks campaigns, no doubt
all intelligent people editing Wikipedia pseudonymously, and for whom
revelation of their real-life identity would be a disaster, simply
stopped doing
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM, AGKwiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the Night Jack
case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
different perspective, now that the court has confirmed itself as unwilling
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars of a couple of
years ago, where one of
I was also absent during the BADSITES war, but... Anomnity is important.
--Unionhawk
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy,
Daniel R. Tobias wrot. e:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars
Ok, I don't intend on becoming a checkuser or other dignitary that
requires real name identification, so, I think I'm good in that regard...
--Unionhawk
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Is anonymity important to
Phil Nash wrote:
AGK wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the
Night Jack case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach
pseudonymous editing with a different perspective, now that the
court has confirmed itself as
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the Night Jack
case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
different perspective, now that the court has confirmed itself as unwilling
to uphold the anonymity
2009/6/16 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8103132.stm
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the Night Jack
case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
different perspective, now that the court has confirmed
Was there an assumption in the past that screen name anonymity would be
protected by law enforcement and the court system? I don't agree with the
judge's conclusions that the public is entitled to the identity of a
blogger, but it seems obvious that the court is not going to provide
injunctive
Whatever one thinks of the decision by The Times to run a story about him,
it is plainly right that he should not have been able to maintain his
anonymity through the courts. It would have been very surprising if the
court had found otherwise.
Attempting to find the real person behind a literary
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's complicated. In this case, the Times worked out his identity and
the court said they couldn't be stopped from saying it, considering
the guy was a public commenter on matters of legitimate public
interest.
I think
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.comwrote:
My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current
UK privacy (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though
I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of
the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.comwrote:
My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current
UK privacy (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Sam
Blacketersam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote:
Update: It's there already:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html
Cheers, I'd checked BAILII but didn't think to look under QB.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I say people just sty behind their anonymity cloaks while they still
can. I can say from personal experience that if people know your real
name if you are a blogger, prepare for some hate mail. It filled my
inbox for a good month, and people are still
17 matches
Mail list logo
