Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikipedia ordered by judge to break confidentiality of contributor
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/2 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: 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 how I read it. I read it as the court considering requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being released... Section 10 # As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted. Paragraph 11 of the judgment seems to imply that it was the applicant who wanted anonymity for WMF, the respondent, while the WMF was entirely open about it. Perhaps the applicant was concerned that someone would be able to work out which article was involved and therefore obtain a copy of the edits in question. Note the following section (paras 13-32) where the applicant wants to stop the court providing information to a non-party. Without any knowledge of who is involved and which article is involved I would hope the edits were oversighted since the court clearly considered the issue was substantial enough to grant the Norwich Pharmacal order itself. Presumably the foundation knows and can act. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Celtic languages Internet project
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Don't we already have a Celtic language Wikipedia? Looking around, there seems to be a fair number of varieties of Celtic languages [1] , including Gaelic and Welsh. Can anyone clarify this - perhaps they were meaning Manx? There is a Manx language Wikipedia: http://gv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ard-ghuillag -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK government on defamation on the internet
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/17 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: Plan to update libel law for web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8259814.stm Does anyone know what this means? Publishers of online archives and blogs might also be given a defence of qualified privilege - that a piece is fair and accurate and published without malice - against an offending article after a year time limit has expired. If it is fair, accurate and malice-free, then it isn't libellous anyway, and doesn't need correcting. This is talking about news reports or blog discussions of claims made by third parties, eg at the public meeting Joe Bloggs said John Doe had accepted bribes and was corrupt. Let's suppose John Doe was not corrupt and Joe Bloggs was just trying to smear him. The report would still be libellous unless it came under the Reynolds qualified privilege defence from case law, but this is rather weak and difficult to qualify for. So the proposal is to have a statutory defence. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Daily Mail on Flagged Revisions
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.orgwrote: Both this list and wikien-l are public. To repost a substantial portion of a news website’s article on either of these mailing lists is a copyright violation. Not necessarily; not if it's for the purposes of criticism or review, or for example pointing out manifest errors. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court. Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access. I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends. -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
Sending this again - I am a list member but got a bounce message for some reason. -- Forwarded message -- From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com Date: Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ... To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, the more legal success they have with this approach (and they do have a plausible cause in the UK, if they throw enough money at arguing so), the more *utterly radioactive* the publicity for them will be. I’ll be calling the NPG first thing Monday (in my capacity as “just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics”) to establish just what they think they’re doing here. Other WMF bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is. What they think they're doing is protecting their revenue. I've just posted on commons explaining where I think the NPG are coming from. To cut a long story short, they are a non-profit making gallery and licensing reproductions makes them a sizable annual income. They are also key members of a group which co-ordinates other UK museums and galleries on copyright law. They can't just decide to give up this case; they will fight it, if needs be, in court. Expect the NPG to argue that allowing WMF to host reproductions would, in effect, extend Bridgeman v Corel worldwide, thereby depriving galleries of a significant income from reproduction fees - income which would not therefore be available to fund restoration of pictures etc. They are also likely to say that the result would probably be that galleries would be unable to afford to run websites containing reproductions, so it would actually diminish public access. I doubt that the media battle will be one-sided. The NPG has a large number of influential friends. -- Sam Blacketer -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Foundation-l] sue and be damned FOI to NPG
Why are my posts not appearing on this list when I am a list subscriber? -- Sam Blacketer ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
