Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Interview with Tony Benn
2009/1/8 Brian McNeil > Something that may be of interest to WMUK people… > > > > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tony_Benn_discusses_politics_with_Wikinews > > > > If you want to suggest questions, stick them on the talk. It may be a good > idea to listen to the previous interview which is a couple of clicks away > from the related news section. > Tony Benn is perhaps the most difficult of old Labour to speak to. The whole interview is a little fawning (I suspect a little soft-trot ( http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ )) going on here. The interview is at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/File:Tony_Benn_Cleaned_Interview.ogg#file and Tony Benn didn't discuss the the collapse of capitalism and had high hopes for Brown. The rest of the interview develops into soft-trot brown nosing - Post- Master General, Concord and not a single mention of the devaluation of the pound which Benn was party to. Benn is no soothsayer, Brown sold off our gold reserves, universally banks invested in loan stock that was far beyond its actual value. Loans stopped, every high street is plagued with administrators signs and everyone has lost face. I find it very difficult to understand that a soothsayer like Tony Benn didn't spell out clearly that capitalism needs a bust and a job queue. m ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikipedia Loves Art
On Jan 7, 9:41 pm, Gordon Joly wrote: > >Now, where are the rules of the game? > > >Gordo The skeleton of the rules of the game are outlined on the wikipedia project page (en:WP:WLART) and the Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/ groups/wikipedia_loves_art/) Quite a few of the details are still missing - some just not expressed and up to be decided. I had a fairly detailed conversation with Pharos last week and many of these details are set but just not put on paper yet! >From various discussions, the outline seems to be: People are invited to take photos, within the rules of the particular institution. For instance, the V&A say no tripods, no photos in temporary exhibitions (these are marked on the museum guide) and none of work created by artists who are alive or who died within 70 years (a precise statement of their rules will be posted to the wiki soon); as most of their collection is older than 200 years, the last isn't much of a problem as long as you keep away from the modern sections. If you take a photo of an item, please make your next photo a photo of the label so we can catalogue. People will be given a list of about 50 themes. For instance if the theme is "politician" (not giving anything away here!), you would get a point for a photograph of a sculture of a politician. You can get a maximum of three points per theme so the most you could get is 150 points. A photo cannot count to more than one theme. Once taken, please upload the photo of the item and the label to flickr. Add a name, description and tag "V&A". Also tag the "theme" that applies to the photo. Crop, rotate, sharpen or otherwise edit it within flickr as necessary; Change the license to CC-Attribution or CC- Attribution-ShareAlike. Then add it to the WLA group. I've just noticed incidentally that flickr has an upload limit of 100MB per month for free accounts. My 6mp camera creates photos about 0.5 to 2 MB in size meaning I expect to get around 100 photos for that (50 images plus 50 tags). Is this likely to cause a problem? Can you get round it by just creating three accounts? Or should we say people can alternatively just upload the photo of the item, as long as you transcribe the label onto the description? Each museum will go round each photo tagged to them and check it complies with their restrictions (e.g. living artists). I'm not sure at the moment whether they will remove non-compliant images from the group or tag them and ask the photographer to remove them from the group. Either way they will still be there on the person's own photostream so there's no loss if we need to reverse it. Also I'm not sure whether someone will go round positively tagging those that appear to be compliant. We will also contact users who haven't applied a wikipedia-compatible license to ask them to change it. All photos must be uploaded with the right tags and license by the end of February to get any points. Once all this is done, we'll tot up the points and announce the results. The three people who get the most points will each win a prize. The person with the most points will also win the prize from Wikipedia Loves Art, which is to nominate their favourite artist and a group of wikpedians will create a Good Article on the artist. We'll then ask people to nominate what they think is the best addition to wikipedia, have a vote and the winner of that will also get a prize. Employees of the V&A and Board members of Wiki UK Ltd are not eligible for prizes but are still welcome to take part! After that, comes stage 2 which is to identify photos that would be useful on wikipedia. I would expect to see a number of repeat images, so we should try to identify the best photos. This is probably best done by adding comments to the photo in the group. Once this is done, transfer them to Commons using a tool like http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload and link into articles. Also add a category like "Wikipedia Loves Art" so we can keep track on the lasting impact we're having. This will all be done in March/April. ok, how does that sound? Is this plan going to work? Is there a better way of doing things? What other details need to be decided to make this project work? regards, Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 geni : > 2009/1/8 Andrew Gray : >> 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : >> >>> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >>> specific police force, do they? :o) >> >> It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick >> search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police >> forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. >> >> It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last >> few years to see what's been written about the way they work. > > They were formed due to chief inspector Stephen French of the > Metropolitan Police explaining to the ISPs what would happen if they > didn't do something. > > In terms of the way they works see this mailing list: > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/thread.html#85788 > the subject being "cleanfeed and wikipedia". Lot to read but it gives > some idea of the history of the IWF and cleenfeed (which was not > initially an IWF project). > > > -- > geni > highlights: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085830.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085840.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085903.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/086192.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085917.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085821.html <--some info on the audit http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/086026.html <--suggests the body they consulted with was CEOP which may be FOIA proof. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085887.html <-some info on their board politics http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085975.html Some info on why the IWF are allowed to view the stuff: http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/mousexoffences.pdf -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 geni : > 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : >> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >> specific police force, do they? :o) > > No. From what we know now know of their internal operations the > determination as to an image's status is done internally by their own > trained staff. They were audited in 2006/7? by an external group > (university academics) but the details of that are somewhat hazy. They claimed to have consulted the police, but to what extent, we don't know. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Andrew Gray : > 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > >> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >> specific police force, do they? :o) > > It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick > search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police > forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. > > It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last > few years to see what's been written about the way they work. They were formed due to chief inspector Stephen French of the Metropolitan Police explaining to the ISPs what would happen if they didn't do something. In terms of the way they works see this mailing list: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/thread.html#85788 the subject being "cleanfeed and wikipedia". Lot to read but it gives some idea of the history of the IWF and cleenfeed (which was not initially an IWF project). -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a > specific police force, do they? :o) It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last few years to see what's been written about the way they work. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a > specific police force, do they? :o) No. From what we know now know of their internal operations the determination as to an image's status is done internally by their own trained staff. They were audited in 2006/7? by an external group (university academics) but the details of that are somewhat hazy. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/advice_to_the_internet_watch_fou They just responded, rejecting my request under s17(4): In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request under Section 17(4). Section 17(4) of the Act provides: (4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection (1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information. The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption: S30(3) Investigations The MPS will not disclose whether it has carried out an investigation, or whether an investigation is taking place, unless that information has already been placed in the public domain, through channels such as the media or the court process. Nor will we confirm whether or not correspondence has been received by a force from a third party. Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, simply confirming or not that such information were held would reveal which force has and hasn't had contact with the IWF. I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a specific police force, do they? :o) -- Owen Blacker, London GB Say no to ID cards: www.no2id.net Get your mits off my bits: www.openrightsgroup.org Help us crowdsourcing video: www.theyworkforyou.com/video -- Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] IWF at it again on Wikipedia?
2009/1/7 David Gerard : > Mike Godwin says he's contacted the IWF asking directly. I fully > expect my phone to melt tomorrow. > > Speaking of which, people I can refer press to would be good to have > to hand *right now*, as in ready for daytime and evening tomorrow if > this turns out to be the case. I am supposed to spend my days working > for a living, after all ... Oh god - good luck! Have we any idea what the cause of all this was? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Gift Aid - a further update
Having been involved with PayPal subscriptions with the Open Rights Group, it's, quite frankly, a complete arse. Every time a PayPal user changes their card details, PayPal cancels all their ongoing subscriptions. I'd quite strongly recommend ignoring PayPal (for *recurring* donations; feel free to solicit one-offs through them) and just stick with STOs, which are easy enough to set up with any UK bank. My €0,02… -- Owen Blacker, London GB Say no to ID cards: www.no2id.net Get your mits off my bits: www.openrightsgroup.org Help us crowdsourcing video: www.theyworkforyou.com/video -- Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 2009/1/2 Tom Holden > Paypal will always be more expensive than direct bank transfers, even > with the charitable discount, so I'd certainly recommend that those > looking to donate to us who have the facility to make us direct bank > transfers should avoid paypal. > > Direct debits certainly aren't free, though the majority of the costs > are set-up and annual ones, rather than proportional to the level of > donations, so once we're larger it will be relatively cheaper. However > it's by the by at the moment since the Co-Op require you to have had > an account with them for a year before they'll let you set-up direct > debits (out of other people's accounts). > > Tom > > 2009/1/2 AndrewRT : > > On Jan 2, 4:22 pm, "Andrew Cates" wrote: > >> Any progress on accepting direct debits? > > > > We will be able to accept standig orders as soon as the bank account > > is finalised which should be soon after Foundation approval next > > Sunday. > > > > I think the Board decided against direct debits as they were too > > expensive, but I can't find the decision at the moment - cfp could you > > confirm? > > > > We're also looking into paypal which could be promising. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Andrew > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia UK mailing list > > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] Interview with Tony Benn
Something that may be of interest to WMUK people. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tony_Benn_discusses_politics_with_Wikinews If you want to suggest questions, stick them on the talk. It may be a good idea to listen to the previous interview which is a couple of clicks away from the related news section. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
