From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Separate company[edit]

I've reverted (actually rolled back through mis-clicking - apologies) an edit which misrepresented Jon Davies, What he said was "in case there were any litigious issues from outsiders who sometimes come after bits of software. e.g. a South African company made a claim they had invented QRPedia a while back!".

On a similar note, the statement "At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" may be true, but breaches WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, as it does not reflect the apparent baselessness of that claim. the cited source continues:

We do not believe this is the case and do not believe the probability of being involved in actual litigation is high.

Patent troll refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual statement you reverted was "On June 25, WMUK Chief Executive Jon Davies announced that a limited company was set up to hold the domain names, in order to shield WMUK from litigation that might stem from the dispute". It was sourced to this email message, wherein Jon Davies says "...the company was set up to hold QRpedia to offer WMUK extra protection in case there were any litigious issues from outsiders who sometimes come after bits of software". In what did the removed statement "misrepresent" Jon Davies? As for your claim that repeating the statement that "At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" violates WP:NPOV becuase it doesn't "reflect the apparent baselessness of that claim", I can only suggest that you have a very different understanding of "neutral point of view" than I do. Neutrality does not mean that both sides of any particular view are represented equally, it means that we do not take a side, as you appear to be suggesting we should in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the former, the quote does not support "that might stem from the dispute". I note that you do not address WP:UNDUE with regard to the latter; and I do not suggest that we "take a side". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
So, what about

At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters alleging that QRpedia infringes various patents. Though WMUK believes that this is not the case and that the risk of litigation is not high, a limited company has been set up to hold QRpedia, in order to shield WMUK should such a challenge arise.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As proposed wording? That seems accurate. Whether it meets WP:UNDUE is another matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If the claims are 'baseless', then the WMUK shouldn't need to set up a limited company. Also, the fact that such a company currently holds the domain names seems like an encyclopedic fact that should be included in this article. Optimom (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
[ec] Defending baseless patent claims can be punishingly expensive. As I said, patent troll refers. I don't see anyone objecting to mention of the company per se. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The corporate structure and the thinking behind it are both pertinent. Does anyone agree with me that the infobox should go? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In what way is that not supported? Davies says the company is for "extra protection in case there were any litigious issues". Is that not stemming from the dispute? The "dispute" in this case being "letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" in the previous sentence. I'm not opposed to wording changes, but I don't see how it is misrepresnting anything or anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The section heading is "Wikimedia UK dispute". The (seemingly bogus) threat of patent litigation is not referred to as a dispute. In any case, Jon's comment does not refer to that specific threat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Then why didn't you clarify what "the dispute" was (although it should have been clear in context) rather than removing the statement? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy seems to think it's not DUE, Can you live with my proposed wording? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
[EC] Because I didn't anticipate anybody making such a basic mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I have reworded the problematic part of the addition and replaced it, separating it from the previous paragraph for clarity. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I prefer my wording because it makes it clear WMUK thinks the risk is not high, which is pertinent, and the email says the company was set up to "hold QEpedia" not just the domain names. And I don't see the point in citing Jon Davies.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy's fixed the "hold QRpedia" issue [1] and I'm bored with this now, so I'll shuffle off, unless anyone wants to discuss the removal of that awful infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You'll note my initial post here included the point that not reflecting the (common) dubious nature of the patent allegation was NPoV. That remains to be addressed. Would we blindly report that "WMF has received letters alleging that MediaWiki infringes patents", which I'll bet they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right, Andy. I agree. How's that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request again[edit]

Hello, can I point out (again) that I was not chair of WMUK when QRpedia was invented. It was already installed in Derby Museum on April 9th. I was merely a volunteer Wikipedian in Residence (ie unpaid). I was elected chair on April 16th - a week later. THis may seem minor but it feeds misunderstandings like the quoter late where it says "found that the amount of time taken to resolve ownership". There was NO resolution required of ownership! It belonged to me and Terence. It did take a long time. When we started WMUK was a company and on my watch it became a registered charity. We employed staff. We opened our first office. We spent time having regular meetings with WMF. Other stuff was happening! You will see that the domains have finally been transferred due to the intercession of the new chair of WMUK.

So thanks to whoever picks this up. Could you 1. Fix that I was a volunteer and part-time wikipedian in Residence (first British WIR!) 2. There has never been a problem with "resolving ownership" - it was ours until very recently when the IPR was donated to WMUK. 3. Ownership now lies with WMUK.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. I've removed the "chairman" part as being unsourced. I've not added anything about WIR because I can't immediately see a source making clear (to me) that was the case at the time or exactly how it was relevant.
  2. The "amount of time" clause seems to accurately reflect the source cited, so I have not changed it. It might perhaps be possible to expand and clarify this section slightly with an alternative source which is clearer about the situation?
  3. Yes this needs updating. What's the best source available?
You might want to add a "COI edit request" template here... I can't remember quite where the template for that is located. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Thanks - the WIR is sourceable but the important point was that I was not an WMUK director or chair. That just allows spin.
  2. Its up to you to decide if claiming that a "resolution" was possible (when the ownership was 100% clear) is just spin. No one doubts that it took a long time before it was donated..... but that is the nature of giving. Its voluntary.- having an investigation into why you haven't received a gift yet is a bit odd IMO.
  3. I'm not sure there is a good one. But a WHOIS on the domains should be without spin. Victuallers (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Stats page screenshot needed[edit]

For use in a presentation, I need a screenshot of one of the old-style stats pages; does anyone have one, please? (There's none on Commons). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QRpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)