The Foundation has been in regular contact with Google on this issue since the day after the ruling. I have not been directly involved, and am not clear to what extent what we know about Google's approach can be shared, so I can't provide many details.

With that in mind, a few reminders:
- Google is big enough now that they have some communications problems. Whoever you are talking to may not realize that other parts of Google have already been talking to WMF.
- Whoever you are talking to may not be familiar with our hosting and liability structure, which may cause them to make bad assumptions about how the ruling impacts us, or about who you are speaking for. Make sure to look out for those assumptions and clarify then quickly.
- You should be careful to distinguish your opinions as Wikimedians from our legal position on the applicability of the decision. For example, if you think we should do more in this area, please make sure to clarify that that is because you think it is the right thing, not necessarily because you think WMF is legally obliged to do anything.

With those reminders aside, I would be interested to hear this group's thoughts on next steps here from a Wikimedian *cultural* perspective. Ignore the legal question for the moment: should editors be handling things differently than they currently do? The same?...?

Thanks-
Luis

On May 30, 2014 4:40 AM, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

thanks to everyone for the interesting replies and the discussion so far. I hope it doesn't stop here. It is a topic we'll should think about and I'd be expecting at least some law suits around this.

Just to make sure everyone understands, I haven't been asked to consult Google or to have Wikimedia on their advisory council or anythig like that. I've just been invited to:
"discuss our approach in more detail, answer any questions or take any views you may have" (direct quote)

I will make sure to report back here after the meeting.

Cheers,
Dimi

2014-05-30 13:21 GMT+02:00 Jens Best <jens.best@wikimedia.de>:

Hi Dimi, Hi all,

"Consulting" Google is something we shouldn't have any interests in. Having a talk could be interesting.

The matter of social forgetting shouldn't be something which is decided by a council of "digital wise men & women" as Google is planning (I'm not at all happy to see Jimmy Wales in there) nor should it be decided by a government agency for official forgetting as the German government just announced to do (and what reminds me of some dystopian scifi story).

The subject of deleting information out of commercial search engines is one problem (not basically ours), the ongoing campaign about making "the internet" forget about information (by cutting down the search results) can be a great problem for us.

It is a cultural question which shouldn't be forced by any laws or court decision.

There was a intense case about the right to oblivion and the right to have the information who murdered Walter Sedlmayr in Wikipedia[1][2]. Both in the German and the English Wikipedia this was a long dispute but in both, as of today, the names of the murders are noted and when you type in their names in Google Search the first results are the informations about them being convicted murderers who took their time in prison and now are free again.

The question is, and taking the example of a murder makes this case so considerably, how we handle redemption and forgiveness as a society. The variety of social interaction makes a clear decision about what to forget and what to remember first look like a question which was in former times answered by religion. In todays open and free societies this question is based solely on the individual level - only very strong cultural barriers can "overwrite" this in very few cases and even there it is often cause for great dispute.

Which leeds us to the only level on which the "right of oblivion" could be considered - the level of power over the people by scoring algorithms. We score each other on so many levels that this debate needs some reality check. Take the example of the murderers of Walter Sedlmayr. I bet many job applications of them went negative - officially not because they have been murderers and some fellow workman would feel uncomfortable having a murderer working next to him, no, surely officially there were many many other reasons why they didn't get a job, a creditline etc.

So, scoring means power, knowing things about somebody leads to scoring possibilies. Intransparent scoring or scoring with highly disbalanced conditions are unjust and the need to level the play field is immanent. Search competence (even only knowing how to use Google cleverly) brings an advantage in personal scoring skills, this is a cultural and social challenge, not something you can regulate by law or with a bunch of selected wise men & women judging over your case.

We, as the civil movement of Free Knowledge have to find or own answers beyond this cheap solutions which are now "negotiated" between business and governments. Therefore we should be careful to not let us be taken in by Google or any government.

We should first of all develop our own thoughts on this. Where would an appropiate place for that? On Meta? Is there already some kind of draft paper about our thoughts as movements/European Chapters?

best regards

Jens Best

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr#Aufkl.C3.A4rung_der_Todesumst.C3.A4nde_und_Folgen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr#Murder

2014-05-30 11:10 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:

Hello everyone,

I was contacted by Google's Brussels policy office team today and they want to meet with me and talk about the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that allows users to request information about them be taken off by search engines.

They want to discuss their approach in this matter in more detail and answer any questions we might have.

Dooes anyone on this list have a particular question they'd like me to ask them?

Cheers,

Dimi

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

--
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. 

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors