Asking people to comment on something they haven't seen would indeed
be unreasonable. Fortunately, Jon did something entirely different:
inviting those interested to get in touch with the person who will
write the response. Why not take up the suggestion?
On 3 August 2012 20:41, geni
On Aug 3, 2012 5:07 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/08/12 15:46, Michael Peel wrote:
'We' the editing community (all 1000 that !voted online) felt SOPA/PIPA
was relevant, and blacked out the site. 'We' the charity communicated the
decision and views of the community to the
On 4 August 2012 12:14, Martin Poulter infob...@gmail.com wrote:
Asking people to comment on something they haven't seen would indeed
be unreasonable. Fortunately, Jon did something entirely different:
inviting those interested to get in touch with the person who will
write the response. Why
On 04/08/12 19:14, Deryck Chan wrote:
No they aren't, and they shouldn't be expected to, because the two
have a great overlap of membership and the same goals.
Overlap of membership is no reason to make two groups identical, either
in reality or in the mind of third parties.
Gordo
Human perception is rarely governed by either reason or reality.
--
Rexx
On 4 August 2012 21:52, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
On 04/08/12 19:14, Deryck Chan wrote:
No they aren't, and they shouldn't be expected to, because the two have a
great overlap of membership and the
I would be strongly opposed to endorsing political lobbying groups on this
or any other issues. I would like Wikimedia UK to be an educational
organisation that remains fastidiously neutral on these conflicts and does
not take any political sides, whether it is the side of the Pirate Party
I understand your fear of appearing political but it is not political to
respond to government consultations - that is a civic duty.
The Charity commission is very clear about this:
All charities are united by having a vision of a better society. They have
many different purposes, and are
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I sent this around a while back.
The ORG would like our support.
Joscelyn Upendram is preparing a simple reponse on our behalf, if anyone
wants to offer her ideas contact her directly
Jon Davies.
On 3 August 2012 14:06, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-communications-bill/news/call-for-evidence/
I did put together a list of Wikimedia-specific concerns with the
draft bill a while back on the list.
But
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I understand your fear of appearing political but it is not political to
respond to government consultations - that is a civic duty.
The Charity commission is very clear about this:
All charities are united by
On 3 August 2012 14:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2012 14:06, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Also, despite what Andreas says, it's not about partisanship, the bill
is drafted atrociously and extremely vaguely. Even if you agree with
what the government is trying
On 3 August 2012 14:02, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
So it is then up to a charity to decide 'what is relevant' In our case we
felt that SOPA/PIPA was relevant and went as far as to black out the English
Wikipedia for a day.
Your other - very valid - points notwithstanding,
You are so right Andy! Hush my mouth - I will go and hide under my WIkidesk!
On 3 August 2012 15:46, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 3 August 2012 14:02, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
So it is then up to a charity to decide 'what is relevant' In our case we
On 03/08/12 15:46, Michael Peel wrote:
'We' the editing community (all 1000 that !voted online) felt
SOPA/PIPA was relevant, and blacked out the site. 'We' the charity
communicated the decision and views of the community to the media.
It's very much this communication role that we the
That's excellent - do you think we could use our own-branded derivative as
it's CC-BY-SA 3.0?
I've attached a tiny thumbnail of what it might look like.
--
Doug
On 3 August 2012 17:10, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:06, Gordon Joly wrote:
On
On 03/08/12 17:10, Michael Peel wrote:
On 3 Aug 2012, at 09:06, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 03/08/12 15:46, Michael Peel wrote:
'We' the editing community (all 1000 that !voted online) felt SOPA/PIPA was
relevant, and blacked out the site. 'We' the charity communicated the decision and
views of
On 03/08/12 20:03, David Gerard wrote:
and as a group of charities supported by
public donation we owe it to the public to say who we are and what
we're about, nevertheless the whims of the press and of the news cycle
are not necessarily anything we should actually concern ourselves over
On 3 August 2012 13:43, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I sent this around a while back.
The ORG would like our support.
Joscelyn Upendram is preparing a simple reponse on our behalf, if anyone
wants to offer her ideas contact her directly
Jon Davies.
Its unreasonable to
18 matches
Mail list logo
