On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
> >
> > On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
> >
> >> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
> >> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
> >> being released but the cour
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:53, geni wrote:
> 2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
>>
>>> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
>>> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
>>> being released but the court didn't gran
2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
>
> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
>> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
>> being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
>> that might have
2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
>
> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
>
>> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
>> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
>> being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
>> that might have
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried
> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
> being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
> that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not
2009/12/2 Sam Blacketer :
> The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
>
> Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy
> extensively.
Seems reasonable. Someone was being a [[WP:DICK]] of the first order.
Turned out to have meatspace conseque
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 17:36 +, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would
> > be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't
> > instantly have the facts (s
Bod Notbod wrote:
> Never mind the legal technicalities, I'm still snorting coffee over my
> desk at the bit that says:
>
> 'The open nature of the site has led to embarrassing instances in
> which pages have been edited to contain false information. Tony
> Blair’s entry was once edited to state th
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Agreed, but my point really is that anyone dealing with the media would
> be better prepared with some knowledge of other instances. And I don't
> instantly have the facts (some of what I know about this might be
> ArbCom-related and so pr
Magnus Manske wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first
>> time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the
>> first instance of that clause being invoked.
>>
>
> Yes, but th
The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
Note WMF not represented but the judgment quotes the privacy policy
extensively.
--
Sam Blacketer
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedi
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> While the Telegraph may possibly be correct that this is the first
> time for a British court to make such an order, I doubt this is the
> first instance of that clause being invoked.
Yes, but the Telegraph is a British newspaper, so all o
Michael Peel wrote:
> Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
> encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
> after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
> alleged blackmailer."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog
On 02/12/2009, michael west wrote:
> On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel wrote:
>> Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
>> encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
>> after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
>> alleged bl
On 2 Dec 2009, at 16:20, michael west wrote:
> On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel wrote:
>> Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
>> encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
>> after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
>>
On 02/12/2009, Michael Peel wrote:
> Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
> encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
> after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
> alleged blackmailer."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Telegraph today: "A senior judge has ordered Wikipedia, the online
encyclopedia, to disclose the identity of one of its contributors
after a mother and her young child pleaded for help in identifying an
alleged blackmailer."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia-
2009/12/2 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
>> It's "out" - as in no longer draft. Andrew will be sending it out by
>> email this evening, and it will be going on the WMUK blog and twitter
>> feed at the same time.
>
> Now would be better... The Google story is doing the rounds now, it
> m
2009/12/2 Charles Matthews :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> The BBC is running an article about Google's latest move in this story:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm
>>
>> If we get this release sent out soon then we might be able to get that
>> article updated to mention us.
>>
> So
2009/12/2 Michael Peel :
> It's "out" - as in no longer draft. Andrew will be sending it out by
> email this evening, and it will be going on the WMUK blog and twitter
> feed at the same time.
Now would be better... The Google story is doing the rounds now, it
might be finished by tomorrow.
_
It's "out" - as in no longer draft. Andrew will be sending it out by
email this evening, and it will be going on the WMUK blog and twitter
feed at the same time. Please feel free to mention it to all your
favourite journalists... ;-)
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/Free_online_ne
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The BBC is running an article about Google's latest move in this story:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm
>
> If we get this release sent out soon then we might be able to get that
> article updated to mention us.
>
So someone do it. I don't understand ab
The BBC is running an article about Google's latest move in this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm
If we get this release sent out soon then we might be able to get that
article updated to mention us.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
2009/12/2 Brian McNeil :
> I disagree about taking out links - most press releases are online now
> and can (i.e. most do) include inline links.
The online version can, but the one that is sent out to the press
needs to be plain text. I expect this release will be posted to our
blog as well, that
Brian McNeil wrote:
> Mike, I edited one of the quotes; it should, under no circumstances, go
> out until you okay that.
>
I have slain some verbiage and re-ordered. You can always revert me.
Charles
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikim
25 matches
Mail list logo
