Thanks Simon.
Back to Trillium's point, I don't think we should vilify people solely for making a removal request, but nor should we censor verifiable and notable information that complies with our policies just because the subject dislikes it, and we should be transparent about requests for censorship.
It is a pity that the court ruling was so broad. I wonder if there is a better way to balance the values of privacy, transparency, freedom of speech, verifiability, and access to information regarding web search results. It would be interesting to hear from WMF Legal about what they think the court should have done.
Pine
On Aug 6, 2014 11:20 PM, "Simon Knight" <sjgknight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bear in mind Pine that the RTBF request need not be from the subject of the article (so BLP & NPOV are less relevant), it could be someone mentioned peripherally. The link suppression would also only relate to search terms about /that/ person, rather than the main subject, just to muddy the waters: It's closer to deleting an index term than it is deleting a book (or chapter). The pages/chapter would still be indexed, just not against the specific terms relating to the requester. Looks like it might be possible to work some of them out e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gerry_Hutch#Removal_from_Google_Search
>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: 07 August 2014 01:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Cc: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Transparency and "right to be forgotten" notices from search engines
>
> I see how you could read it that way, but remember that to be included on Wikipedia information should be notable and written in NPOV fashion, and the BLP policy applies. If someone wants to contest information in their BLP we have more subtle tools for handling disputes than pure removal, although sometimes we will remove content.
>
> Pine
> On Aug 6, 2014 3:05 PM, "Trillium Corsage" <trillium2014@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > I see I am not the only one who noticed what WMF Legal is doing, but I
> > see it a different way than Nathan. I see it as the WMF intimidating
> > and threatening those EU individuals who dare to to exercise their
> > rights under the court's ruling. Brigham and Paulson are basically saying "just try it.
> > We will Streisand you."
> >
> > Trillium Corsage
> >
> > 06.08.2014, 16:11, "Nathan" <email clipped>:
> > > Thanks very much for this, Stephen and the legal team. I especially
> > > appreciate that the WMF has decided to make public the specific
> > > notifications of the use of the "Right to be forgotten" in the
> > > EU.[1]
> > It's
> > > interesting that the bulk of the suppression requests have come from
> > > a single (ex?) Wikimedian targeting internal process pages of his
> > > home
> > wiki.
> > > Not shockingly, the RtF request is now in the top 5 results on a
> > > Google search of that persons name.
> > >
> > > The NY Times covered the transparency report:
> > >
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/wikipedia-details-government-
> > data-requests/?src=twr
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engi
> > nes
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Stephen LaPorte <email clipped>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The “right to be forgotten” has been the subject of much
> > >> discussion and debate (including on this list),[1] particularly
> > >> following the May
> > European
> > >> Court of Justice judgment ordering Google to delist some links
> > >> related
> > to a
> > >> Spanish citizen.[2] Since then, search engines have been receiving
> > requests
> > >> to remove hundreds of thousands of URLs from search results.
> > >> Google recently released more information about its right to be
> > >> forgotten requests.[3]
> > >>
> > >> The WMF legal team has been watching the “right to be forgotten”
> > >> issue closely and considering what legal strategies we should take
> > >> going
> > forward.
> > >> Today, the WMF published its first transparency report[4]—you can
> > >> read
> > more
> > >> in this blog post.[5] WMF held a press briefing announcing our
> > strategy of
> > >> advocacy and transparency on link censorship. We will oppose what
> > >> we
> > see as
> > >> a misguided court decision that has resulted in a crude
> > >> implementation
> > of
> > >> the “right to be forgotten.” Lila has also issued a statement,[6]
> > >> and, Geoff, WMF’s general counsel, and Michelle Paulson, WMF's
> > >> legal
> > counsel,
> > >> have published a blog on the subject.[7] As the topic is of
> > >> interest to this group, we wanted to keep you informed of these
> > >> recent legal developments.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Stephen
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/00054
> > 7.html
> > ,
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/00053
> > 9.html
> > >> [2]
> > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131
> > >> [3]
> > >>
> > https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOE
> > NqR3M/edit
> > >> [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/
> > >> [5]
> > >>
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-fi
> > rst-transparency-report/
> > >> [6]
> > >>
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-
> > holes-in-free-knowledge/
> > >> [7]
> > >>
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-euro
> > pean-search-results/
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Stephen LaPorte
> > >> Legal Counsel
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation
> > >>
> > >> *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal
> > >> and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
> > >> lawyer
> > for,
> > >> community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> > capacity.
> > >> For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> > >> Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>