On Nov 28, 2012 11:05 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Credit checking, besides the costs, would require consent and can damage
their credit rating so I would strongly advise against that.
Just to clarify, it wouldn't actually be a credit check. It would be using
a credit
Morning all,
So, I'm sensing that while there is some acceptance that a bit more
gatekeeping may be warranted, we don't want anything heavy handed, and that
verifying identity prior to voting each time isn't practicable.
How do we feel about Jon's suggestion of confirming address? I can easily
The Postcard idea is good, but remember that a postcard isn't in an
envelope, so please don't print anything more on it than the minimum needed
for us to know which postcards have come back - i.e. a membership number.
I would suggest that you also want something in the process to raise an
alert
Just to put this into a real world perspective. I an a member of the
Labour Party which gives me certain rights to vote. I've never once in
23 years been asked to provide evidence of who I am. In terms of
entryism the Labour Party has had a long history and the problem is
dealt with not with
On 22 November 2012 12:44, michael west michaw...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to put this into a real world perspective. I an a member of the
Labour Party which gives me certain rights to vote. I've never once in
23 years been asked to provide evidence of who I am. In terms of
entryism the Labour
Just a few thoughts in reply.
Yep, I'm a member of several organisations including a political party, as
of course will be some of our Trustees, and true, not all of them verify
applications but rely on the caveat of kicking people out if caught doing
something 'naughty'. I don't think the
On 22/11/12 12:05, Katherine Bavage wrote:
How do we feel about Jon's suggestion of confirming address?
Suppose a group with funds wish to influence a body. They pay for the
membership fees (and a little on the side for goodwill).
All these schemes will not uncover that scam.
Gordo
On 22 November 2012 14:12, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
Suppose a group with funds wish to influence a body. They pay for the
membership fees (and a little on the side for goodwill).
All these schemes will not uncover that scam.
Our threat model here is dedicated Internet trolls.
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 14:12
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions
and comments
On 22/11/12 12:05, Katherine Bavage wrote:
How do we feel about Jon's suggestion of confirming address?
Suppose a group with funds wish to influence
On 20/11/12 20:12, Chris Keating wrote:
Another step some organisations take is to say that someone has to be
a member for a certain length of time before conferring voting rights
on them, though the only time I've seen this is enacted is when there
have been serious problems with people
Morning -
All members are voting members...unless I've missed something?
Yes, the credit checking thing occurred to me but seemed a little excessive
- plus it would complicate our obligations in terms of possible data
protection (if it was part managed by staff) or I suspect would be really
Are you sure PayPal require that?? I have a verified PayPal account and it
only involved confirming my bank account via a £1 payment... No Id needed
:-)
Tom Morton
On 20 Nov 2012, at 10:37, Katherine Bavage
katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Morning -
All members are voting
On 20/11/12 11:42, Thomas Morton wrote:
I suppose what we need to demonstrate is that, say 'Joe Bloggs' is a)
Is who he says he is (proof of photo ID) and b) Lives at the address
he says he does (utility bill? Electoral roll?). If people pay from a
verified paypal account the need to check
On 20 November 2012 12:30, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
This is all a bit exclusive. Widening membership should not be down PayPal
or electoral roll or having a bank account (since this would exclude people
aged 17 years old and under).
You can have a bank account when under 18. I
Sorry to chime in from outside, but why is checking the address so
important?
How many people in the UK do not have some form of government ID (passport,
drivers licence, etc., I know the UK is not big on ID cards)?
By the way, Couchsurfing has a friendly way of verifying addresses: they
send you
On 20/11/12 12:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 20 November 2012 12:30, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
This is all a bit exclusive. Widening membership should not be down PayPal
or electoral roll or having a bank account (since this would exclude people
aged 17 years old and under).
You
On 20 November 2012 13:05, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
Aha. Seems there are accounts for the 11 to 15 age range (Barclays,
Santander, etc)
But I think membership should be open to all. id checks will exclude
some.
As long as it is only a small number of members that can't be
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 20 November 2012 10:37, Katherine Bavage
katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Morning -
All members are voting members...unless I've missed something?
I think Harry might have been distinguishing
We can easily come up with all sorts of ways to make membership a
massive pain in the arse. But what was the threat model again? And
what's accepted practice - how do other UK charities deal with said
threat model?
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
Bottom line for me is what is not working at the moment that we need to
change? Our hope is to greatly grow our membership. Obviously there are
risks but are they really huge? The more members we have the less the risk
of cabals taking over.
On 20 November 2012 13:34, David Gerard
On 20/11/12 13:34, David Gerard wrote:
We can easily come up with all sorts of ways to make membership a
massive pain in the arse. But what was the threat model again? And
what's accepted practice - how do other UK charities deal with said
threat model?
Sounds like something for the Audit
Katharine has already explained the threat: somebody registers multiply
under different identities, or banned people register under false
identities, and then uses votes to push a motion at and AGM or EGM or to
push candidates onto the board of trustees.
We want people to become active members
On 20 November 2012 13:53, Martin Poulter infob...@gmail.com wrote:
Katharine has already explained the threat: somebody registers multiply
under different identities, or banned people register under false
identities, and then uses votes to push a motion at and AGM or EGM or to
push
To reply to Harry's points:
(i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members?
Yes, although enforce is the wrong word. Perhaps check that they are
real people who will support our objects and haven't given a fake address
would be a better way of putting it. We have a duty to ensure that
How about doing it in a nice way? Sending a thank you LETTER (sorry trees)
with a badge or sticker in and an 'if not received return to...label. AT
least that would be some sort of verification. Perhaps a freepost
confirmation postcard therein as a belt and braces?
To be frank going from 320 to
On 20 November 2012 15:03, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
How about doing it in a nice way? Sending a thank you LETTER (sorry trees)
with a badge or sticker in and an 'if not received return to...label. AT
least that would be some sort of verification. Perhaps a freepost
On Nov 20, 2012 12:58 PM, Damokos Bence damokos.be...@wikimedia.hu
wrote:
Sorry to chime in from outside, but why is checking the address so
important?
How many people in the UK do not have some form of government ID
(passport, drivers licence, etc., I know the UK is not big on ID cards)?
Just in case anyone's wondering - the Board didn't discuss this issue at
much length at the weekend, but the issue is certainly one to think about,
and we asked Katherine to look into the subject.
I haven't yet mentioned my personal views based on my own experience. so
here they are;
Personally
On 20 November 2012 20:12, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd also note that I've worked for several membership organisations and am a
member of many more - none that I know of take any steps to verify
memberships, even where someone is formally required to approve each
On 19/11/12 10:54, Katherine Bavage wrote:
At the board meeting on Saturday a valid point was made that currently
the verification process for membership applications doesn't really
prove a barrier to fraudulent or duplicate applications.
fraudulent or duplicate applications.
Isn't
I don't know, but I'm guessing by definition that people who are trying to
commit fraud might not be put off by that, plus if we don't have effective
checking mechanisms we're not going to be able to know and pursue action
even if so.
Still, any legal types on the list who can answer the
Aren't there really two points here:
(i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members?
(ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at
AGMs, whether in person or by proxy?
I think the legal question is a good one. Are charities required to do
neither/either/both?
Hey Harry,
I'm not sure if ii) *is* easier. Compare the work of verifying members
before every AGM and EGM or merely at the point of joining.
We don't really have formal check on membership at the moment - no
applicant is asked to prove their residency at their address of that they
have provided
The only way I can think of for verifying identities like this is a credit
check. For example, this service offered by Experian:
http://www.experian.co.uk/qas/qas-authenticate.html
I'm not sure what that would cost or what data protection restrictions
there are on its use.
On Nov 19, 2012 4:32
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Katherine Bavage
katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hey Harry,
I'm not sure if ii) *is* easier. Compare the work of verifying members
before every AGM and EGM or merely at the point of joining.
We don't really have formal check on membership at the
35 matches
Mail list logo
