Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-21/News and notes
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Gamaliel in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- It would be nice, if "we" go to appeal, to present arguments that are watertight and compelling. This, as some of us know to our cost, can be much harder to do if one is too close to the subject. If the case cannot be sufficiently robust, including the grounds for appeal, that it cannot be weakened by a well informed, competent, opponent, then bringing it is counter-productive.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
- The headline just posted by Boing Boing sums up the absurdity nicely: "NSA spying: judge tosses out case because Wikipedia isn't widely read enough". It's only the seventh most used website in the entire world. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, that headline isn't accurate to either the article or the facts of the case. The judge in question disputed that the WMF had standing based on the unclear assertion of possible NSA surveillance. While I disagree with the decision (based on Wikipedia's ubiquity) the judge clearly doesn't want challenges to gov't activity and won't allow cases like these without hard proof of a aggrieved party. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Above two comments by Gamaliel and Chris troutman moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-21/In the media, as they seem to relate to the NSA story discussed here, rather than any of those covered in this week's ITM. Andreas JN466 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, that headline isn't accurate to either the article or the facts of the case. The judge in question disputed that the WMF had standing based on the unclear assertion of possible NSA surveillance. While I disagree with the decision (based on Wikipedia's ubiquity) the judge clearly doesn't want challenges to gov't activity and won't allow cases like these without hard proof of a aggrieved party. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ars Technica has by now noticed that the judge was TS Ellis III, not Bennett. (But they've mis-spelt him. And now RT says, "US District Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled in favor of the National Security Agency (NSA) ...") ... --Andreas JN466 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)