Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales To Become UK Government Adviser
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."
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Wales (Although constitutionally he'd be ineligible, of course)
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
How could they ignore him, just think of all the personal appeals he'll be making.
horror vacui
Seeing his mug on Wikipedia's "beggin strips" made me cringe.
The cute college girl with the labret piercing, on the other hand...
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Invade Pakistan - a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales.
#DeleteChrome
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The true reason is, so that they can put him behind bars for protesting
against content tyranny with the SOPA blackout.
-- no sig today
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.
More likely, his input will be reverted for "inaccuracy", i.e. for diverging from the groupthink.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, really? What exactly are you referring to?
hmm good one
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.
Don't bother bringing facts to this dispute. We've got a story about the UK government and Jimmy Wales. Game over, man, game over.
And if they do ignore him, at least he'll have a position he can leave in protest :)
Though, I do see any reason why they would ignore him?
Nicely done sir, nicely done. Noted.
Now we'll get David Cameron begging for donations to the government.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Nasty and foreign? So you can't point to something specific that is incorrect, while confirming you have issues. Well played.
The UK Government displays a wide array of cunning stunts. I think spelled that right...
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Freedom of speech includes the right of editoral control to decide both what and what not to publish.
He just did.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
*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".
The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, ...
Don't feel bad. You're not as different as you think.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
he has to sign an NDA??? and as such remove anything from wikipedia that contridicts that NDA?
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
IIRC, the governance of Wales is now separate from that of England, unlike what it was until fairly recently.
Yes and no. Wales now has a separate government from England - the Welsh Assembly - but they still both come under the heading of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Yes, but at the same time a resounding no.
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, similar to that of Scotland, but with somewhat less autonomy.
Wales has it's own, elected, Assembly (why they chose not to use the word parliament, I'm not too clear on). Much like the parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it has had powers devolved to it, although IIRC not as many.
England doesn't have it's own devolved legislature, although as the lions share of the MPs who sit at Westminster come from England, it has often been argued that the UK parliament's decision-making is heavily slanted in favour of England making the need for such to be somewhat of an irrelevance.
So in a way, yes it is fair to say that governance of Wales is separate, in as much as they have the ability to set their own policy in some areas. That being said, because they remain bound by decisions of the UK parliament in Westminster (along with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland), it is also fair to say that they are not separately governed.
It is also fair to say that the majority of those living in (certainly my locality in) Wales have no concrete concept of where the line is drawn between what powers the Welsh Assembly has vs. what powers remain exclusive to Westminster. Obviously, foreign and military policy remains with Westminster, but other areas seem to be a little more grey.
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)