537:
117:
107:
33:
127:
166:
87:
137:
97:
954:
was three disjoint sentences apparently from his notes, tacked on the end. Ah well. The story was then copied by every other paper in the country, without anyone bothering to call and even get a new quote (they just copied it from the
Telegraph). I credit it to last week being one of the most paralysingly slow April news weeks in the UK that I can remember -
508:"), who called it "a well-sourced – albeit quirky and a little dated – summary of the state’s biotech community", appeared surprised that it seemed to have been written by a hobbyist rather than someone from the bioscience industry, and contacted local biotech trade groups, finding out that they "had no idea about the site".
366:. Among the possible explanations, it cited the belief by some sociologists "that Indonesians have long been living in a verbal culture and the shift to a writing culture did not necessarily happen after the arrival of the Internet", or that most of them have a traditional language as their first language, instead of
284:, the chief executive of the organisation, said: "While there may be exceptional circumstances in which injunctions may be necessary, we are seeing gagging orders being used to hide the wealthy from embarrassment and even commercial damage. We are in danger of creating a secret network of secret rich man's justice."
1067:, than the issue of law concerning liability as it pertains to freely editable sites, over different jurisdictions. That's a very specialized topic which requires significant expertise. And unfortunately, there will be no benefit to getting it correct, as there is no reward for that vs other factors. --
1048:
expect journalists covering
Knowledge to have some knowledge of Knowledge, just as I expect science journalists to know something about science or sports reporters to know something about sports. That's what they are paid for, after all. Perhaps not to the level of understanding ANI, but to the point
657:
Thanks for the note about the servers, it has been fixed (I assume you were aware that you were commenting about a draft version before publication). I didn't quite understand why you put "successfully" in italics - the suppression of the injunctions was "succesful" in a similar sense as in the Rohde
633:
This is actually kind of garbled - "However, Knowledge's servers are based in the United States, meaning they cannot be held liable for publishing content which breaks the terms of a superinjuction.". First, in terms of the sentence itself, rarely are servers held liable :-). I think you're trying to
953:
I was the spokesman who was sort-of-quoted by the
Telegraph. I chatted to the journalist for about half an hour covering just about every aspect of this rather complex issue (I did emphasise that we don't do things from legal threat, but because we're trying to actually do the right thing); what ran
757:
I find the possibility of it being just gossip is diminished by the fact that superinjunctions were taken out at all. Most of the time, that seems to be claiming guilt in regards to the incident. But, regardless, if it was just normal tabloid stuff, I don't believe that that type of info is normally
251:
quoted a spokesperson for
Knowledge who said that administrators will continue to remove content that violates superinjunctions. However, Knowledge's servers are based in the US, outside the UK jurisdiction. "People have tried to sue the foundation for libellous content but it's been thrown out. Our
276:, the British prime minister, has also spoken out against superinjunctions: "The judges are creating a sort of privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is should decide how much protection do we want ... so I am a little uneasy about what is happening." Campaign group
90:
1006:
I won't argue about how much jargon is stuffed in that sentence from ANI, but I would like to think someone on
Knowledge knows what that sentence means. (Maybe I'm just too optimistic in some ways.) My guess, to put it in plain English, would be that "material covered by superinjunctions should be
937:
That doesn't actually answer the question. Even if they aren't verifiable, that means they would just get reverted as OR, but being oversighted is a far level beyond that and does not seem appropriate for this situation. On a separate note, I just can't figure out who the fourth person is. Maybe
894:
If the edits are being removed because they are poorly sourced, then why are they being oversighted and/or admin deleted? Most BLP violations are simply reverted. If admins are trying to enforce a UK court ruling, they need to explain what makes them feel that they have an obligation to do so.
458:
that one of its PhD students had been selected for a summer research fellowship at the
Wikimedia Foundation, a Wikimedia Foundation Summer Fellowship, "participating in an interdisciplinary team seeking to gain a deeper understanding of why the active editor base on Knowledge is not replenishing
813:
Except, as has been pointed out, there is past precedent for not caring about
British laws in this regard unless the Foundation says otherwise. Hopefully, they end up getting rid of super-injunctions as it is in the future. They're essentially the rich man's tool. Quite literally, in this case.
1025:
I read Rich
Farmbrough's comment to be saying that journalists should check ANI ("Had they checked the most obvious sources ..."). I've inveighed many times against the sins of journalism, and have even committed a few myself to my great dismay, but expecting knowing about and checking ANI is
675:
Yes, I was aware I was commenting about a draft - I thought this was the best place to put the comment, so someone might correct the problem before final release. If there's a better place to put such comments, what is it? (P.S. - there's also many misspellings as "injuction"). I stressed
242:
While the revisions in the history of the articles have been deleted by administrators, it is evident that on one of the pages the reports of the superinjunction were added ten times by various users. The names of the four celebrities are readily available on the social networking site
853:
are two. One left i'm still trying to find. (I'm listing the names here to see if it is really just BLP issues, which means i'm allowed to speculate all I want here as long as i'm not defamatory, or if it's more than that, which means this will get redacted and I get to complain more)
597:
938:
because they're so generic, a "television presenter with two kids". I don't think we would have been able to figure out Andrew Marr if he hadn't outed himself. In comparison, a
Premier League footballer and a high level actor are easy to figure out (as I presented above).
110:
758:
revdeleted unless it is overly defamatory, which this isn't necessarily. Do the articles at least say that the people took out superinjunctions? Because that would be highly relevant and not gossip. I'm going to go check now and, if they don't, i'm going to add that in.
676:"successfully" about the David Rohde case because it still amazes me. The received wisdom about such situations is That Cannot Happen. That all such attempts fail, rebounding to the extreme embarrassment and humiliation of the would-be imprisoner of information (Cry
747:
I believe there have been strong arguments against using
Superinjuctions as sole justification for removing content, but the BLP concerns about tabloidy gossip were sufficient to justify removal on several occasions. At least, that is what I hope is going on.
634:
say that Wikimedia is a US-based foundation, with no assets in the UK, so no UK court injunction could easily be enforced on it. The question of liability under UK law for user-generated content is another issue. Also, you might want to mention
130:
100:
140:
702:
I think serious scholars of the Streisand effect would observe that it only occurs if there exists a sufficiently strong (minority) public opinion against the suppression of the content. (There is not Streisand effect for child
698:
is used for discussion of stories before publication, but it surely is better to point out errors on this talk page than nowhere at all ;) I just wanted to avoid the impression that the error had made it into the finalized
729:
of information in these articles been discussed and approved by the community or are these admins acting unilaterally because of feared reprisal from a country that really can't do anything against Knowledge itself?
211:
system has been implemented. A superinjunction is a legal injunction which prevents all media from broadcasting both the allegation the person has chosen to hide, but also the fact they have taken out an injunction.
830:
Well, these matters can get complicated. Just be careful. One of the aspects of Knowledge which really bothers me is risks for The Movement where if it all blows up, somebody else may end up paying the price --
680:! And slip the mobs of net.). But it didn't work out that way. You only see the unsuccessful ones, and rarely hear about what you didn't hear about. So it's very much a touchstone for me on that topic. --
794:
I'd be a bit careful about the idea of "really can't do anything against Knowledge itself". I'm hesitant to get into a detailed discussion, as I'm not a lawyer. But I think the Wikipedian phrase here is
160:
370:. The Indonesian Wikimedia chapter has received a US$ 40,000 grant for a program to increase volunteer participation, parts of which are focusing on the Javanese and Sundanese language Wikipedias.
1007:
handled by Admins & other editors in the same manner any content about living persons is, & leave the legal aspects of that material to the WMF & the individual it is about." (Crap.
292:
1001:
73:
865:
840:
825:
808:
984:
1076:
1058:
1039:
1020:
576:
715:
689:
670:
581:
571:
272:, threatened to take legal action to expose his superinjunction; Hislop this week celebrated his disclosure of what he termed a "Kafkaesque" and "absurd" court order.
796:
789:
769:
752:
586:
904:
67:
612:
1068:
1031:
993:
832:
800:
681:
643:
120:
561:
918:
651:
1049:
where they could talk to an experienced Wikipedian explaining things to them slowly and patiently and then writing something marginally better than this. —
992:
FYI, that sentence is complete gobbledegook to virtually all journalists. And it's not a net positive to be among the few to whom it is comprehensible. --
554:
524:
515:
963:
949:
741:
393:
192:
215:
548:
52:
41:
403:
255:
The debate over the moral ethics of superinjunctions has become more intense in Britain in recent months. This week, BBC political presenter
1150:
969:
Had they checked the most obvious sources, even excluding David, there was an ANI thread on this which closed with "BLP issues for admins
490:"was unfairly branded as a racist" after calling an Indian-American college student "macaca" in 2006, partly due to the Knowledge article
505:
355:
377:
262:
in January 2008 to prevent the media reporting an affair he had with a national newspaper journalist. Marr came forward only after
617:
845:
It's nice that I can confirm my guesses on the identity of the men by seeing if the history of the article has redacted edits. So
21:
1125:
601:
385:
624:
1120:
1115:
695:
1110:
635:
326:
has been included in its "honor roll", commenting that she is "known for her work in the Open Source movement" in the
259:
473:
441:
455:
291:
order concerning a sports broadcasting journalist's short-time arrest and minor "disorderly behaviour" charge (
252:
material has to be really well referenced or it is chucked out immediately", according to the spokesperson.
1105:
536:
46:
32:
17:
469:
494:(created after the incident and according to Slate over-emphasizing the racist connotations of the term).
204:
196:
1072:
1035:
997:
836:
804:
685:
647:
425:
339:
235:. The other two are television presenters: one allegedly had an affair, and another, according to the
978:
208:
239:, took out a superinjunction to quash photographs described as showing him "intimate" with a woman.
227:) is a high-profile actor who reportedly had an extramarital affair with a prostitute, and one is a
658:
case, as noted in the article. (Admittedly, the subtitle may be a bit brief regarding that aspect.)
327:
959:
944:
860:
820:
784:
764:
736:
501:
411:
331:
726:
421:
1131:
1054:
975:
444:", alleging that various edits made in recent months to the article about US TV journalist
363:
359:
319:
174:
775:
8:
287:
In January, there was a similar case on Knowledge after a New Zealand court had issued a
277:
219:
335:
315:
1016:
955:
939:
855:
815:
779:
759:
731:
608:
381:
362:
suffers from relatively low activity compared to other language versions such as the
914:
749:
677:
480:
Did Knowledge article on pejorative expression contribute to unfair racism charges?
367:
350:
288:
1050:
900:
436:
195:
last week. The information on the four articles has constantly been reverted and
188:
179:
711:
666:
483:
305:
280:
welcomed Marr's confession about the superinjuction, which he has now dropped.
228:
150:
1144:
850:
491:
323:
299:
281:
273:
232:
200:
1012:
487:
445:
910:
389:
268:
256:
169:
778:. So that's good. I'm still trying to find out who the other three are.
896:
846:
442:
Did Rick Sanchez Edit His Own Knowledge Entry to Downplay DUI Accident?
263:
298:). The information was likewise reverted at first, but was eventually
707:
662:
398:
231:
footballer accused of having an affair with reality-show contestant,
154:
973:
admins, legal issues for WMF counsel and individual contributors."
506:
Knowledge website meets Ohio biotech. Why didn’t it happen earlier?
407:
161:
Administrators removing material that violates UK legal injunctions
380:
of made-up information into the article about US baseball player
244:
191:
taken out by four celebrities in Britain to the stars' articles,
404:
Brent Lillibridge's catches gain him Knowledge special attention
165:
459:
itself at the same rate it used to — and what to do about it."
394:
Lillibridge’s grabs against Yankees prompt Knowledge vandalism
68:
Knowledge users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news
466:
356:
Writing culture on the web: Are we still better at talking?
330:(apart from Wikimedia, also highlighting her work for the
797:
Knowledge:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man
454:: The Information School at the University of Washington
322:
that the Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Technology Officer
223:, one of the celebrities (whose identities are known to
498:
Ohio biotech industry finds itself covered on Knowledge
1011:
version is almost as convoluted as the original.) --
774:Okay, at least for the one I found, the injunction
622:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1142:
642:suppressed from Knowledge by collaboration --
302:after the person in question self-identified.
412:Lillibridge catches inspire Knowledge hackers
172:, presenter of the BBC's political programme
148:
428:about the subject of Knowledge and Academia.
187:Editors have repeatedly added details about
636:Kidnapping of David Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia
504:was welcomed by US website MedCity News ("
260:revealed he had taken out a superinjuction
178:, this week revealed he had taken out a
164:
625:
388:after just 15 minutes, was reported by
14:
1143:
418:Podcast covers Knowledge and Academia
51:
452:WMF summer research fellow announced
448:had come from the article's subject.
432:TV journalist suspected of COI edits
203:reasons; the pages have either been
1151:Knowledge Signpost archives 2011-05
27:
535:
53:
31:
28:
1162:
607:These comments are automatically
909:Because they're not verifiable.
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
1100:: doing it for free since 2005.
618:add the page to your watchlist
500:: The creation of the article
13:
1:
1063:This is less about Knowledge
426:on the "Pod Delusion" podcast
346:Indonesian language Knowledge
593:
463:WikiProject Public Art on TV
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
1167:
340:Apache Software Foundation
638:, where information was
1077:20:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
1059:13:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
1040:22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
1021:20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
1002:12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
985:11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
964:23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
950:22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
919:07:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
905:07:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
866:23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
841:23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
826:23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
809:23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
790:23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
770:23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
753:22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
742:22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
716:08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
690:23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
671:22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
652:08:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
486:that former US senator
465:: Milwaukee TV station
615:. To follow comments,
540:
502:Ohio bioscience sector
474:WikiProject Public Art
332:Open Source Initiative
183:
36:
539:
312:Wikimedia CTO honored
168:
35:
611:from this article's
364:Vietnamese Knowledge
360:Indonesian Knowledge
193:according to reports
175:The Andrew Marr Show
577:Features and admins
278:Index on Censorship
220:The Daily Telegraph
602:Discuss this story
582:Arbitration report
572:WikiProject report
541:
374:Baseball vandalism
336:Mozilla Foundation
316:IT History Society
184:
42:← Back to Contents
37:
988:
626:purging the cache
587:Technology report
482:: Slate magazine
382:Brent Lillibridge
47:View Latest Issue
1158:
1134:
1069:Seth Finkelstein
1032:Seth Finkelstein
994:Seth Finkelstein
983:
947:
942:
863:
858:
833:Seth Finkelstein
823:
818:
801:Seth Finkelstein
787:
782:
767:
762:
739:
734:
682:Seth Finkelstein
678:Streisand Effect
644:Seth Finkelstein
629:
627:
621:
600:
559:
551:
544:
527:
519:
424:was interviewed
422:Charles Matthews
420:: UK Wikimedian
384:, despite being
368:Bahasa Indonesia
351:The Jakarta Post
348:: An article in
289:name suppression
266:, the editor of
197:the diffs hidden
189:superinjunctions
182:three years ago.
157:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1101:
1093:
1092:
945:
940:
861:
856:
821:
816:
785:
780:
765:
760:
737:
732:
631:
623:
616:
605:
604:
598:+ Add a comment
596:
592:
591:
590:
552:
547:
545:
542:
531:
530:
528:"In the news" →
525:
522:
517:
511:
437:Miami New Times
314:: The US-based
308:
209:pending changes
180:superinjunction
163:
158:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1164:
1154:
1153:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1066:
1029:
1028:not reasonable
989:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
772:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
704:
700:
659:
641:
606:
603:
595:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
562:News and notes
558:
546:
534:
533:
532:
523:
514:
513:
512:
510:
509:
495:
477:
460:
449:
429:
415:
371:
343:
307:
304:
229:Premier League
185:
162:
159:
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1163:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1133:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1099:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
990:
986:
981:
980:
977:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
951:
948:
943:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
867:
864:
859:
852:
851:Ewan Mcgregor
848:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
829:
828:
827:
824:
819:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
793:
792:
791:
788:
783:
777:
773:
771:
768:
763:
756:
755:
754:
751:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
735:
728:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:Newsroom page
693:
692:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
639:
637:
628:
619:
614:
610:
599:
588:
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
556:
550:
543:In this issue
538:
529:
521:
520:"In the news"
507:
503:
499:
496:
493:
492:macaca (slur)
489:
485:
481:
478:
475:
471:
468:
464:
461:
457:
453:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
347:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:Danese Cooper
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
303:
301:
297:
295:
290:
285:
283:
282:John Kampfner
279:
275:
274:David Cameron
271:
270:
265:
261:
258:
253:
250:
249:The Telegraph
246:
240:
238:
234:
233:Imogen Thomas
230:
226:
222:
221:
217:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
181:
177:
176:
171:
167:
156:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
1097:
1045:
1008:
974:
970:
956:David Gerard
952:
776:is discussed
724:
694:Usually the
640:successfully
632:
566:
555:all comments
497:
488:George Allen
479:
462:
451:
446:Rick Sanchez
435:
431:
417:
397:
373:
358:") said the
349:
345:
311:
293:
286:
267:
254:
248:
241:
236:
225:The Signpost
224:
218:
216:According to
214:
186:
173:
155:Tilman Bayer
1132:Suggestions
609:transcluded
567:In the news
390:Yahoo! News
269:Private Eye
257:Andrew Marr
170:Andrew Marr
65:In the news
1051:Tom Morris
979:Farmbrough
847:Ryan Giggs
727:censorship
549:2 May 2011
328:roll entry
300:reinstated
264:Ian Hislop
237:Daily Mail
79:Share this
74:Contribute
54:2 May 2011
22:2011-05-02
1126:Subscribe
725:Has this
706:Regards,
661:Regards,
613:talk page
456:announced
399:USA Today
378:insertion
320:announced
205:protected
151:Wackywace
1145:Category
1121:Newsroom
1116:Archives
1098:Signpost
699:version.
518:Previous
470:featured
408:CBS News
338:and the
296:coverage
294:Signpost
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
1013:llywrch
440:asked "
406:") and
386:removed
306:Briefly
245:Twitter
207:or the
111:Twitter
1065:per se
941:Silver
911:Stifle
857:Silver
817:Silver
781:Silver
761:Silver
750:Ocaasi
733:Silver
703:porn.)
484:stated
434:: The
376:: The
334:, the
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
1111:About
1030:. --
946:seren
897:Cla68
862:seren
822:seren
799:. --
786:seren
766:seren
738:seren
467:Fox 6
16:<
1106:Home
1096:The
1073:talk
1055:talk
1036:talk
1017:talk
998:talk
976:Rich
960:talk
915:talk
901:talk
849:and
837:talk
805:talk
712:talk
708:HaeB
686:talk
667:talk
663:HaeB
648:talk
526:Next
472:the
396:"),
318:has
199:for
153:and
141:Digg
971:qua
414:").
201:BLP
149:By
76:—
1147::
1075:)
1057:)
1046:do
1044:I
1038:)
1019:)
1009:My
1000:)
982:,
962:)
917:)
903:)
839:)
807:)
714:)
688:)
669:)
650:)
516:←
410:("
402:("
392:("
354:("
342:).
247:.
1071:(
1053:(
1034:(
1015:(
996:(
987:.
958:(
913:(
899:(
835:(
803:(
710:(
684:(
665:(
646:(
630:.
620:.
557:)
553:(
476:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
