On 29/05/2011 14:54, Chris Keating wrote:
Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in
landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a
landmark legal case.
There is quite a big difference betw
>
>
> Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in
> landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
>
> Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a
> landmark legal case.
>
>
There is quite a big difference between asking Twitter to release user
information
On 25 May 2011 23:05, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On a converse note; a society that is so enthralled with the idea of a
> footballer having an affair is so unimaginably pathetic that they probably
> deserve any restrictions they end up with. Those of us fighting for free
> speech current seem to be do
e softer targets south of the border - thousands
> of them.
>
> But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
>
> Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
> for 'super-injunction celebrities&#
them.But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org>;
Date: Wed, May 25,
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 22:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
>
> > I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
> > exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
> > deflected interest away from the Wikipedia
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
> I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
> exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
> deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Although the original Telegraph journalist/editor didn't
On 25/05/2011 09:53, Chris Keating wrote:
Suggestion: modify the living people rules. since "you cannot
libel
the dead".
What modification did you have in mind, out of interest?
I'm also quite glad it's turned out to be a Twitter story rather than
a Wikipedia story.
Chris
>
>
> Suggestion: modify the living people rules. since "you cannot libel
> the dead".
>
>
What modification did you have in mind, out of interest?
I'm also quite glad it's turned out to be a Twitter story rather than a
Wikipedia story.
Chris
___
Wi
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter
exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege)
deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Note that 75,000 are alleged to have tweeted the name. Where as the
Wikipedia entry was edited by a h
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 08:52 -0700, iain.macdon...@wikinewsie.org wrote:
> I have no idea; but, I will say that the Scottish judiciary, and legal
> profession in general, is widely incredulous at the idea England
> considers it appropriate. Therefore, I find it unlikely in the extreme
> that such co
On 23/05/2011 16:40, iain.macdon...@wikinewsie.org wrote:
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.
Tell that to Alex Salmond (he was speaking on Radio 4 this
On 23/05/2011 11:38, KTC wrote:
> 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...
>
Amen to that. Still, for his FAT FEE..
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly
gordon.j...@pobox.com
htt
On 23 May 2011 16:56, wrote:
> While I'm on the subject:
> In the last half-hour or so The Telegraph, Sun and Daily Mail have all named
> Giggs following a question in Parliament; the Sun need no longer worry about
> fighting the injunction.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/85311
lIain
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: geni <geni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:46 pm
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 23 May 2011 16:40, <iain.macdon...@wikinew
: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles
for 'super-injunction celebrities'
From: geni <geni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 4:46 pm
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 23 May 2011 16:40, <iain.macdon...@wikinewsie.org>; wrote:
>
> The ability to
On 23 May 2011 16:40, wrote:
>
> 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.
Has anyone actually tried though? Same human rights act to build the
law from so cas
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:38 +0100, KTC wrote:
> On 22/05/2011 12:50, iain.macdon...@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
On 22/05/2011 12:50, iain.macdon...@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
a
h 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 c
On 21 May 2011 20:10, Brian McNeil 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
I believe the applicable case law is Arkell v. Pressdram.
On 21 May 2011 20:10, "Brian McNeil" 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 ha
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
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" wrote:
_
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 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
gordon.j...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
_
On 9 May 2011 08:29, Gordon Joly 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 peo
On 29 April 2011 21:42, Gordon Joly 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 injunct
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
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" wrote:
> This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday
On 29 April 2011 00:10, David Gerard 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
On 28 April 2011 23:38, Fae 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 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/wik
33 matches
Mail list logo
