Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Fae-6
This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday) and shows
that Wikipedia has processes that can protect articles (which most of
the public would be unaware of) and that prompt action is taken when
verifiability or legal issues are outstanding.

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/8479272/Wikipedia-users-name-celebrities-with-gagging-orders.html
* http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862006-wikipedia-names-super-injunction-celebrities
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381487/Wikipedia-names-4-UK-celebrities-sex-scandal-super-injunctions.html
* http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/04/superinjunction.html

I would be interested to know if any other members have opinions on
how well the press interest was handled by WM-UK and whether we would
have been better off saying more, less or putting our case more fully
on the WM-UK blog http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk ?

Thanks,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

David Gerard-2
On 28 April 2011 23:38, Fae <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would be interested to know if any other members have opinions on
> how well the press interest was handled by WM-UK and whether we would
> have been better off saying more, less or putting our case more fully
> on the WM-UK blog http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk ?


This has been the subject of much discussion on the comcom list ...

I was the person the Telegraph spoke to. We chatted for about half an
hour, during which I gave a detailed discussion of the whole subject,
including hitting every nuance of the subject you can think of. Which
they then, er, didn't use, as if I hadn't said almost any of it.

As it's a paralysingly slow news week (multiple papers running
thousand-word articles on weather for the Royal Wedding?), the story
was then cut'n'pasted by every other newspaper, desperate for
something to print. The quotes were directly nicked too, my phone
hasn't rung since with anyone else actually asking for a comment.

So I'd say this is this season's August/September story, just a few
months early.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

geni
On 29 April 2011 00:10, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As it's a paralysingly slow news week (multiple papers running
> thousand-word articles on weather for the Royal Wedding?), the story
> was then cut'n'pasted by every other newspaper, desperate for
> something to print. The quotes were directly nicked too, my phone
> hasn't rung since with anyone else actually asking for a comment.
>
> So I'd say this is this season's August/September story, just a few
> months early.

Perhaps. However it's pretty clear that the media wants to sink
super-injunctions and "they don't work due to the internet" is the
latest attack line. Going by the size of the traffic spikes on certain
articles I'd say they were only moderately successful.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Deryck Chan
In reply to this post by Fae-6

If we did do anything regarding these press coverages, I think our actions were very successful. The reports described Wikipedia's working mechanism with great factual accuracy, which isn't every day.

On Apr 28, 2011 11:39 PM, "Fae" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday) and shows
> that Wikipedia has processes that can protect articles (which most of
> the public would be unaware of) and that prompt action is taken when
> verifiability or legal issues are outstanding.
>
> * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/8479272/Wikipedia-users-name-celebrities-with-gagging-orders.html
> * http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862006-wikipedia-names-super-injunction-celebrities
> * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381487/Wikipedia-names-4-UK-celebrities-sex-scandal-super-injunctions.html
> * http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/04/superinjunction.html
>
> I would be interested to know if any other members have opinions on
> how well the press interest was handled by WM-UK and whether we would
> have been better off saying more, less or putting our case more fully
> on the WM-UK blog http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk ?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Quote: A spokesman for Wikipedia said that if the allegations were
posted repeatedly the pages could be "locked" to limit those who could
edit them. He added, that, because Wikipedia was based in the United
States, it was not bound by the injunctions.....

Who was that?

Gordo


--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

David Gerard-2
On 29 April 2011 21:42, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Quote: A spokesman for Wikipedia said that if the allegations were
> posted repeatedly the pages could be "locked" to limit those who could
> edit them. He added, that, because Wikipedia was based in the United
> States, it was not bound by the injunctions.....
> Who was that?


Me, as I said. He asked if Wikipedia could be sued. I said that as a
US organisation it wasn't affected by UK injunctions, though UK based
editors were, but that we didn't put stuff in if it wasn't really well
referenced anyway.

As I said, he picked a few sentences out of half an hour's careful
explanation. Possibly I should have just told him to bugger off, but
that doesn't generally work out well except when they're well known to
be an arsehole.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Gordon Joly

Twitter seems to have eclipsed Wikipedia?

http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper

Gordo


--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

geni
On 9 May 2011 08:29, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Twitter seems to have eclipsed Wikipedia?
>
> http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper
>
> Gordo

Twitter have raised the art of getting your name in the media on a
regular basis beyond even second life at its peak and apple. They have
some very good marketing people.

Still if it gets people to stop spamming us it's a definite plus. I'm
sure the AACS encryption key issue didn't last this long. Perhaps we
should just give up and issue an IP over wikipedia edit protocol.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Gordon Joly
On 09/05/2011 09:32, geni wrote:
> >  http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper
> >

And now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy

Gordo

--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Andrew West-4
On 20 May 2011 22:17, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 09:32, geni wrote:
>> >  http://bit.ly/InjunctionSouper
>> >
>
> And now...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy

Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs>

Andrew
(BabelStone)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Gordon Joly
On 21/05/2011 09:30, Andrew West wrote:
> Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:

The affair is outed!

Gordo

--

Gordon Joly
[hidden email]
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

brian.mcneil-2
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 18:40 +0100, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 09:30, Andrew West wrote:
> > Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:
>
> The affair is outed!

The Daily Fail better hope that twitter collapses the Super Injunction
nonsense. We're working on multiple media breaches, including one or two
by them, that've spend a brief time online before being bunged in the
memory hole.

Obviously, there's a need for Wikinews to await feedback from the AG on
this stuff - not go setting up twitter accounts that might get hit with
a Norwich Pharmacal Order. ;-)

[You didn't, did you, Iain?]

--
Brian McNeil.
--
[hidden email] | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

James Farrar
In reply to this post by Gordon Joly

I heard an except from an  interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude was because the name has been named in reliable US sources, US editors will ensure it stays in enwiki.

On 21 May 2011 18:40, "Gordon Joly" <[hidden email]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

brian.mcneil-2
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 19:49 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
> I heard an except from an  interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio
> this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude was because the name has
> been named in reliable US sources, US editors will ensure it stays in
> enwiki.

Something I stumbled across today:

http://www.city-law.net/news/2010/Wikipedia_article.htm

So, it'll stay in - sure. However, someone in the US may well have to
ask for legal assistance (EFF, ACLU?) in - via the Foundation - telling
an out-of-touch man in a white, powdered wig and dress to,.... "eff
orf!".


--
Brian McNeil.
--
[hidden email] | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

James Farrar

I believe the applicable case law is Arkell v. Pressdram.

On 21 May 2011 20:10, "Brian McNeil" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 19:49 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
>> I heard an except from an interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio
>> this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude was because the name has
>> been named in reliable US sources, US editors will ensure it stays in
>> enwiki.
>
> Something I stumbled across today:
>
> http://www.city-law.net/news/2010/Wikipedia_article.htm
>
> So, it'll stay in - sure. However, someone in the US may well have to
> ask for legal assistance (EFF, ACLU?) in - via the Foundation - telling
> an out-of-touch man in a white, powdered wig and dress to,.... "eff
> orf!".
>
>
> --
> Brian McNeil.
> --
> [hidden email] | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
> http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
> "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

geni
In reply to this post by brian.mcneil-2
On 21 May 2011 20:10, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Something I stumbled across today:
>
> http://www.city-law.net/news/2010/Wikipedia_article.htm
>
> So, it'll stay in - sure. However, someone in the US may well have to
> ask for legal assistance (EFF, ACLU?) in - via the Foundation - telling
> an out-of-touch man in a white, powdered wig and dress to,.... "eff
> orf!".
>

If you read the actually case:

http://www.onebrickcourt.com/files/cases/wiki_21890.pdf

 the WMF makes it pretty clear that it doesn't actualy answer to the
court is mearly chosing to respect the court order on that occasion


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

iain.macdonald
In reply to this post by Fae-6
The AG be damned; I have legal advice on this already. I am a Scot in Scotland, and the English and Welsh High Court has no jurisdiction over what I say here.

Being close to the border, it is an amusing idea to go to the Fàilte gu Alba sign on the A1 and follow it up with large banner: English Injunctions END. Maybe a detailed information board in the layby, beside the burger van. Business would treble.

Certain other matters involving the Fail (as well as the Sun and Mirror) are more delicate, and we've a need to do such 'by the book' - plus, we've already been liasing with the AG's office on that. Expect further correspondance once all can be revealed later this year - and, conceivably, newspapers in court.

Also, Ryan Giggs.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@...>;
Date: Sat, May 21, 2011 7:02 pm
To: [hidden email]
Cc: iain.macdonald@...

On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 18:40 +0100, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 09:30, Andrew West wrote:
> > Which footballer would that be? Aaah, Wikipedia finally comes to the rescue:
>
> The affair is outed!

The Daily Fail better hope that twitter collapses the Super Injunction
nonsense. We're working on multiple media breaches, including one or two
by them, that've spend a brief time online before being bunged in the
memory hole.

Obviously, there's a need for Wikinews to await feedback from the AG on
this stuff - not go setting up twitter accounts that might get hit with
a Norwich Pharmacal Order. ;-)

[You didn't, did you, Iain?]

--
Brian McNeil.
--
brian.mcneil@... | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

Katie Chan
On 22/05/2011 12:50, [hidden email] wrote:
> The AG be damned; I have legal advice on this already. I am a Scot in
> Scotland, and the English and Welsh High Court has no jurisdiction over
> what I say here.

That only matter if the lawyers was stupid enough to forget to apply for
an equivalent injunction in the Court of Sessions as a certain
footballer is finding out...

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

brian.mcneil-2
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:38 +0100, KTC wrote:
> On 22/05/2011 12:50, [hidden email] wrote:
> > The AG be damned; I have legal advice on this already. I am a Scot in
> > Scotland, and the English and Welsh High Court has no jurisdiction over
> > what I say here.
>
> That only matter if the lawyers was stupid enough to forget to apply for
> an equivalent injunction in the Court of Sessions as a certain
> footballer is finding out...

Mr Giggs would, I strongly suspect, discover the Scottish Courts far
less inclined to sweep his inability to keep his tackle in his trousers
under the carpet.

They're certainly far less keen on [[w:Carter Fuck]]-style lawyers.

--
Brian McNeil.
--
[hidden email] | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

iain.macdonald
In reply to this post by Fae-6

The ability to get an injunction affecting people without them even knowing is peculiar to the southern side of the border. Superinjunctions are an alien concept in Scotland.

Notice today's news that the Sun is going to challenge Giggs in the High Court. It is rare to find me in praise of the Sun, but credit where it's due.
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:38 +0100, KTC wrote:
> On 22/05/2011 12:50, iain.macdonald at wikinewsie.org wrote:
> > The AG be damned; I have legal advice on this already. I am a Scot in
> > Scotland, and the English and Welsh High Court has no jurisdiction over
> > what I say here.
> 
> That only matter if the lawyers was stupid enough to forget to apply for 
> an equivalent injunction in the Court of Sessions as a certain 
> footballer is finding out...

Mr Giggs would, I strongly suspect, discover the Scottish Courts far
less inclined to sweep his inability to keep his tackle in his trousers
under the carpet.

They're certainly far less keen on [[w:Carter Fuck]]-style lawyers.

-- 
Brian McNeil.
-- 
brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org | Wikinews Accredited Reporter.
http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org
"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
12