|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 23:54:11 GMT
Address: {removed by admin}
Here is a wiki that works just like any other:
Everyone can add, edit, or delete info.
You should be able to read/edit it without making an account.
It is not a forum, and there is no moderator besides everyone that uses it (therefore platform reps can delete links and info too, although edits are transparent).
Only one loan (under SS) exists so far, it is up to users to edit and add more. Anything legal is acceptable: interpret that yourself.
Address: {removed by admin}
PS If it dies, so be it. It may only be of use for the occasional loan (hopefully).
|
|
|
|
Post by bonfemme on Aug 9, 2016 4:24:33 GMT
Well done. This is just what we've been needing in my opinion. Being a former newspaper editor with responsibility to protect against libel, I think the moderators here are far too over-cautious when information is already in the public domain. I was pleased to see the SS thread with the link to the Sunday Times article, as I had been wondering about the background to this loan. I know I could have found the information quite easily if I'd tried Googling, I just hadn't got round to it. I really hope the mods don't ban links to the wiki!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2016 11:10:28 GMT
[Admin note]The links to this wiki have been removed as the links allowed the easy identification of a borrower which is contary to the rules of this forum. Before adding/editing ANY content on the wiki we suggest that you read and make sure you fully understand the following www.wikia.com/Terms_of_Usewww.wikia.com/Privacy_Policywww.wikia.com/LicensingYou need to be aware that every edit of the wiki will be recorded with date and time against your IP address in the wiki database, and with appropriate court orders that info will allow your ISP to identify you even if they allocate you with a dynamic IP address. The Defamation Act 2013 will apply to any use of wiki. If you publish a link to a third party site (another forum or a newspaper for example and that page is defamative) you too are defaming the subject unless you personally can prove the source material was not defamative. Awards of punatative damages for defamation are not that unusual. We recommend that forum members do not participate in a wiki that could be defamative. The forum account of the OP has been deleted as it was created as a duplicate account by an existing forum member to deliberately flout the forum rules.
|
|
Neil_P2PBlog
P2P Blogger
Use @p2pblog to tag me :-)
Posts: 355 
Likes: 209
|
Post by Neil_P2PBlog on Aug 9, 2016 12:01:43 GMT
[Admin note]The links to this wiki have been removed as the links allowed the easy identification of a borrower which is contary to the rules of this forum. Before adding/editing ANY content on the wiki we suggest that you read and make sure you fully understand the following www.wikia.com/Terms_of_Usewww.wikia.com/Privacy_Policywww.wikia.com/LicensingYou need to be aware that every edit of the wiki will be recorded with date and time against your IP address in the wiki database, and with appropriate court orders that info will allow your ISP to identify you even if they allocate you with a dynamic IP address. The Defamation Act 2013 will apply to any use of wiki. If you publish a link to a third party site (another forum or a newspaper for example and that page is defamative) you too are defaming the subject unless you personally can prove the source material was not defamative. Awards of punatative damages for defamation are not that unusual. We recommend that forum members do not participate in a wiki that could be defamative. The forum account of the OP has been deleted as it was created as a duplicate account by an existing forum member to deliberately flout the forum rules. Useful info to have but playing with fire it seems.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,037
Likes: 5,154
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 9, 2016 12:15:47 GMT
Being a former newspaper editor with responsibility to protect against libel, I think the moderators here are far too over-cautious when information is already in the public domain. As a newspaper editor, you were fortunate to be protected by specialist, qualified legal advice and a substantial legal defence budget. The mods here don't have that luxury. Erring on the side of caution seems perfectly appropriate. Half of the (perfectly appropriate) fear of defamation actions comes not from the fear of losing, but from the fear of incurring costs in defending what may well be a completely unwarranted action. (btw, Admin - "punitive" and "defamatory")
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2016 14:21:29 GMT
It has now come to light that some of the content on the wiki to which the OP linked may have been posted via Tor / The Dark Web. For the benefit of those who haven't heard of Tor before here is wikipedia's explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)Forum members need to form their own view as to how they feel about this. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 9, 2016 14:30:43 GMT
The censorship issue can stiffle free speech and hence ruin a forum.
If a articile is on the internet it is hardly a secret , It is all there for millions to see.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Aug 9, 2016 14:44:51 GMT
I completely agree. Just look at youtube - there are numerous 'defamatory' videos about named politicians, royalty, etc, and they don't mince their words either! This 'caution' about not having a link to a publicly available article is just nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 9, 2016 15:17:34 GMT
Various members of the forum staff have said repeatedly that those of you who have no concerns about the Defamation Act, nor the Terms and Conditions of the p2p platforms you invest in, or perhaps have insufficeint personal net wealth to be too concerned about the consequences are free to use other fourms, wikis, you-tube, facebook, twitter or whatever; and post whatever you want on those sites. However, we make no apology for making forum members aware that there may be risks associated with the use of such sites, to allow them to form their own opinion.
The only constraint is we ask forum members to abide by the rules of this forum, and not post on this forum any link to material that allows borrowers to be identified.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 9, 2016 15:31:55 GMT
It has now come to light that some of the content on the wiki to which the OP linked may have been posted via Tor / The Dark Web. For the benefit of those who haven't heard of Tor before here is wikipedia's explanation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)Forum members need to form their own view as to how they feel about this. What are you trying to infer? There is nothing inherently wrong with using Tor and many privacy advocates advise in doing so. If it weren't so slow, I would use it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 9, 2016 15:41:12 GMT
locutus I'm personally open minded about tor, but the last time it was discussed on this forum (and I was the OP who mentioned it) it was clear that a number of forum members were not happy with the concept, and I received a number of PM's strongly critical of my even mentioning it. Its up to people to decide their own inference as to why a user of that wiki may have felt it necessary to use Tor to post content that named a borrower and linked them to unsavoury allegations.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Aug 9, 2016 15:41:20 GMT
.... The only constraint is we ask forum members to abide by the rules of this forum, and not post on this forum any link to material that allows borrowers to be identified. http://www.ft.com http://www.guardian.co.uk http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk .....
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Aug 9, 2016 15:42:54 GMT
Surely if someone says (as they have) that there is an article in such and such a newspaper about such and such loan, and making clear that the borrower is thus identified...
...surely that is also a link to borrower identification. Not quite such a direct link, but a link nevertheless. Court action is imminent I fear!
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 9, 2016 15:57:20 GMT
locutus I'm personally open minded about tor, but the last time it was discussed on this forum (and I was the OP who mentioned it) it was clear that a number of forum members were not happy, and I received a number of PM's strongly critical of my even mentioning it. Its up to people to decide their own inference as to why a user of that wiki may have felt it necessary to use Tor to post content that named a borrower and linked them to unsavoury allegations. Other people's ignorance should not influence moderation policy. Tor is a perfectly legitimate technology. If some people are critical of even mentioning it, I suggest you ask them to educate themselves before commenting further.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,037
Likes: 5,154
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 9, 2016 16:08:30 GMT
It has now come to light that some of the content on the wiki to which the OP linked may have been posted via Tor / The Dark Web.The dark web? So they have an .onion address? The wiki page is just a .com address. You don't need tor to access it but you would be anonymous if you did. Darkweb shmarkweb. The site is freely reachable via a mainstream URL without any particular wrinkles or hoop-jumping being required. Access to it will, of course, be logged against a user's IP, as will any contributions to the wiki. But if those contributions are made via an anonymised IP, through some kind of anonymisation such as TOR, then those contributions will not be traceable back to their author. I think the point Admin was making is that if those who are behind the wiki are so concerned about their own anonymity, then those who may wish to contribute to it should consider their own position carefully.
|
|
