3 ms·
>This result is disappointing for us, but it is not a notable change in the law Bullshit. This is a big precedent where Wikimedia will now remove material from
by dmurray 8y ago
>This result is disappointing for us, but it is not a notable change in the law
Bullshit. This is a big precedent where Wikimedia will now remove material from Wikipedia if a court orders them to. They even acknowledge that the material in this case was, if not unambiguously true, at least well sourced.
That's a huge precedent. It only remains to be seen whether Wikimedia decide to fight a similar decision made by some other court, perhaps in a less popular jurisdiction like China or North Korea.
Perhaps they mean that this is not a notable change in the law because Germany is not a common law jurisdiction, and changes to the law happen only through the legislature and not through the judicial system. But in that case the claim is trivial, and still equally irrelevant now that Wikimedia have set the precedent that they will obey courts in these cases.
- eugeniub 8y agoWikipedia has already been removing material from revision histories for years for many reasons,[1] including legal reasons such as copyright infringement and libel.[2] This is not exactly new terrain for Wikipedia. I would also say that I think Wikimedia decides strategically which countries to have a physical presence in, and therefore follow the laws of that country, and which ones to stay out of. I don't think Wikimedia will have to worry about a North Korean court decision, because they are not in North Korea. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFRD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFRD [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_guide/Deleting#Deleting_a_revision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_gu...
- tomrod 8y agoWe should put up a page highlighting controversial, publicized wiki pages as they are historically significant.
- justinjlynn 8y agoIndeed. They even have a verb for it: oversighted.
- powera 8y agoThe WMF has operated in this fashion for years and years; they comply with court orders to remove material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions describes the English-language policy; German should be effectively the same.
- HarryHirsch 8y agoThat's what they would like you to think. When Wikipedia gets in trouble with the law it usually complies quietly and under the table. Public "office actions", as they call it, are used when the Wikipedia Foundation wants to shine a spotlight on a perceived injustice.