Jimmy Wales To Become UK Government Adviser 95
judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is to become a U.K. government adviser on open government. The unpaid post, announced at SXSW, will see him contributing ideas on issues including the single government portal open.gov.uk, among other things. Wales has been an outspoken critic of some government intiatives in the U.S., including the SOPA act on copyright — whose British counterpart, the DEA, is already law."
Oh Great... (Score:2)
Fucking wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.
This is about the most sensible government related news (especially from teh UK) I've heard in about a decade.
Some people may or may nhot have objections to Mr Wales personal politics and drives (I can't think of any right now, myself). Some people object to anything. But having a guy with a deep dedication to freedom of information in a place where he can at least get a point of view across to government, even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.
That depends on the purpose of putting him into that role. If the purpose is to get input from someone who is actually trying to make things better, then it is a good thing. If the purpose is merely to appease the masses by putting in someone and then not listening to a thing they say - just to have the appearance of trying to make things better, then it is worse than not putting him into that role at all.
Sorry for the half empty tone here, it's been a frustrating day for me.
It's a trap. (Score:2)
The true reason is, so that they can put him behind bars for protesting
against content tyranny with the SOPA blackout.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, but even in glass-half-empty world, the politician has realised that it's a concern and a symbolic gesture must be made, which is progress in my book!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the purpose is merely to appease the masses...
It's an appointment that only a minority will take notice of let alone approve of; so I don't think it can be considered as pointlessly populist.
Having said that, the current government does seem to concentrate on appeasing a minority to the exclusion of all else. A different minority though.
Re: (Score:2)
They did the same thing in America with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They created it, they appointed Elizabeth Warren (a longtime supporter of consumer protections and more regulation), and then made her completely ineffective at getting anything actually done.
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
The UK govt has been surprisingly good about listening to advice from tech advisors. open.gov.uk itself is the result of advice from some guy called Tim Berners-Lee. The new gov.uk [www.gov.uk] site is also a great sign of the government finally starting to get it.
Please Read (Score:5, Funny)
And if they do... (Score:3)
Though, I do see any reason why they would ignore him?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards
I totally agree. We should send letters of thanks to the UK government .. might I suggest:
"Dear PM,
We, the peoples of teh internets, would like to offer our thx for your efforts to allow Jimmy Wales (our spiritual leader) to not be heard.
We're not at all naive, and understand that this is a mere token jesture to placate the non blue-bloods, but nonetheless feel that this is a great step forward.
Sincerely"
How's that?
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's he going to do, shout down some good idea from someone just because they haven't posted enough and aren't well known? Following rules are more important to Wikipedia than actually getting the facts in. Actually, I guess that makes wikipedia and normal governments pretty similar...
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the most sensible government related news I've heard in about a decade
This is so true. While I doubt about it, that would be even greater if it could have a bit of influence over the other European countries. E.g. France, a country that currently takes the exact opposite direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely, his input will be reverted for "inaccuracy", i.e. for diverging from the groupthink.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people may or may nhot have objections to Mr Wales personal politics and drives (I can't think of any right now, myself).
He's a follower of Ayn Rand. Seriously. Not that that should stop him advising on open government, assuming that he knows anything about the subject which he may do.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, that is a cause for concern, but yopu're right, if he's only advising on-topic then all is well.
TBH the UK could do with an infusion of smal-government ideology. But only a small one. Never should go full-rand...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a follower of Ayn Rand.
Well, that's ruined my day. Dare I ask for a citation?
Re: (Score:1)
He's a follower of Ayn Rand.
Well, that's ruined my day. Dare I ask for a citation?
Would you accept Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] as a source in this case?
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Humm, best thing since Gordon Brown's cabinet of "all the talents" maybe. That had plenty of notable advisers.
Also remember most of the House of Lords is made of people like Jimbo (not personality but success).
Re:Fucking wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the fate of David Nutt [wikipedia.org]? Goverment advisors are not supposed to actually give advice of have an opinion of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish some TV broadcaster would re-commission 'Yes Minister' or 'Yes Prime Minister'.
Re: (Score:1)
In the meantime though, just re-watch the same old episodes when they are re-run. Was doing this a little over a month ago and my step-daughter (late teens and relatively switched on) walked in, caught a couple of minutes and then stormed off to watch TV in her room saying that she'd rather watch some "next top model" crap that the current affairs progra
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously.
This is about the most sensible government related news (especially from teh UK) I've heard in about a decade.
That would require the appointment to be more than just spin and there to be some chance of them listening to what he says even if it is not what they want to do anyway
Re: (Score:3)
Well there is a sort of irony about the fact that a man who has turned what was supposed to be an open organization into a gigantic nest of nepotism, cronyism, corruption and abuse of power in charge of an "open government" initiative.
Whatever you might think about Wikipedia, and it has a lot of positive attributes, its governance sucks. The place is in a lot of ways more corrupt and has a greater lack of transparency than the government he's now advising.
Missed opportunity for nominative determinism (Score:1)
The DEA is not SOPA (Score:5, Informative)
Not only is the DEA not SOPA, it was also pushed through under very dubious circumstances right before the last election (most MPs didn't even vote on it, never mind discuss it properly) and is subject to ongoing legal challenges on several counts.
It's a silly bit of law, made on a technicality, but let's not get hysterical.
Re: (Score:3)
Except Prime Minister has never been an elected position.
From Wikipedia:
British Prime Ministers have never been elected directly by the public. They have all become Prime Minister indirectly because firstly, they were members of either the Commons or Lords; secondly, they were the leader of a great political party; and, thirdly, they either inherited a majority in the Commons, or won more seats than the opposition in a general election.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nicely done sir, nicely done. Noted.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* Technically, yes, but when there is a general election, it is known that the leader of the winning party will become prime minister. People vote for the party they wish to be in power, and a major part of each party's campaign revolves around the leader who will become prime minister if the party wins a majority. Ergo people do effectively vote for a prime minister.
Except in cases like Brown's, when the incumbent decides to hang up his towel and his deputy becomes prime minister. Then we say he is an unelected prime minister, because the people voted for the other guy (even though, yes, technically they only voted for the other guy's party). This is what parent is referring to.
Thanks for the Wikipedia quote though. The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, lest we ignore that and just talk about how it works in practice.
Blair made it quite clear he wasn't going to serve the full 05-10 term. It was also clear that Brown would be next in line. People did vote in Brown in 2005, certainly more the american public voted for in LBJ in 1963, or even more Gerald Ford in 1973.
In 1990 it was a bit of a shock that Major took the reigns, although he still had been voted in by his constituency. There's more of an argument he was "unelected", however as he then won in 1992, I suppose you might say he's more "legitimate".
Re: (Score:2)
Blair made it quite clear he wasn't going to serve the full 05-10 term.
No, he didn't. In fact, he explicitly and very publicly said exactly the opposite, in direct response to popular concerns about voting for the Labour Party at the general election and winding up with Gordon Brown as PM. Try googling "Tony Blair full third term", and get back to us after you've finished reading a version of the quote covered by basically every major media outlet in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, ...
Don't feel bad. [wikipedia.org] You're not as different as you think.
Re: (Score:1)
(most MPs didn't even vote on it, never mind discuss it properly) ....
what I observed was a near empty room, someone suggesting voting, then suddenly a room full of MPs from all sides all doing as their whips had told them too. It looked like a *lot* of MPs voted to me
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty close to what happened, except that it only appeared to be the Labour MPs who were whipped enough to turn up en masse, and even then quite a few rebelled. The Tories mostly kept awfully quiet, despite earlier seeming like they supported the legislation, and the few who did turn up came down marginally against the bill overall. The Lib Dems who did vote were voting against. In any case, fewer than half of our then-MPs voted, which for a bill this controversial is appallingly low.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: The Digital Economy Bill (third reading) at The Public Whip [publicwhip.org.uk]
He's going to give them the puppydog eyes too. (Score:1, Funny)
Seeing his mug on Wikipedia's "beggin strips" made me cringe.
The cute college girl with the labret piercing, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm not looking forward to (Score:5, Funny)
Invade Pakistan - a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would an "unsuspecting girl" open a Wikipedia article titled "Human penis"? More importantly, if they do, why shouldn't they expect to see the subject of the article?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is perfectly predictable in that regard - if you go to an article, you can expect the subject of the article to be pictured in the top right corner of the page. A well-made photo of the real thing is the best illustration you can get, so what's wrong with that? And if you don't want to see something "icky", just don't go to the corresponding article.
Good luck with that (Score:2, Funny)
The guy who brought edit wars, [citation needed], and ceaseless begging to the great hordes of the Internet is going to be a consultant to the UK gubmint? Despite doing it pro bono, he's overpaid.
Re: (Score:3)
I am going to revert that comment, it's unsourced!
Re: (Score:3)
Go back to Wikipedia, copy your post there and link the source back to your original slashdot posting.
Best way to win edit wars too.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to revert that comment, it's unsourced!
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. Take a step back. Wikipedia is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. Take a step back. Wikipedia is awesome.
Lighten up, Francis.
WALES (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The UK parliament in Westminster has legislative powers over the whole of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).
Scotland has it's own, elected parliament, with quite wide ranging authority to set policies that apply only to Scotland. Scotland, however, still remains part of the UK and subject to the UK parliament (much to the dismay of their First Minister, if the press is to be believed).
Northern Ireland has it's own, elected parliament, simi
Oh the irony. (Score:1)
A man in charge of a site that polices additions to its content and will not allow certain ideas to be posted or themes to be followed, is going to advise the UK Government on openness.
Coming soon - Bill Gates to advise on Open Source.
Re:Oh the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule of law is whst makes freedom possible. What you appear to be describing is an online version of that Randian dream, Somalia. Try building an online encyclopedia of this scale, without having rules and measures to deal with the guys who will devote alarming amounts of time to replacing all nouns with "shitcock".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Verbs? No-one would ever be that crazy.
Theres no irony (Score:2)
Freedom of speech includes the right of editoral control to decide both what and what not to publish.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? What exactly are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Nasty and foreign? So you can't point to something specific that is incorrect, while confirming you have issues. Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Type "Heathen" into the search, you get some sort of nasty foreign gibberish. They need to check some other ones two, try the British "Wicca", you get something nasty and foreign too. I think they should be jailed for trying it on with two very proud religious traditions ...
I don't speak Norwegian, so can't comment on that one, but the UK "wicca" entry looks all right to me. It appears to be a sober description of wicca as a belief system, something that is actually quite hard to do without laughing.
wales advising england (Score:1, Funny)
hmm good one
Unpaid position but... (Score:2)
he has to sign an NDA??? and as such remove anything from wikipedia that contridicts that NDA?