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/000547.html, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131 [3] https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/... [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-tr... [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-... [7] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-s...
Hi Stephen,
thank you for sharing this! I do like the position so far and do agree that this, well, let's call it half-baked court decision causes a lot of problems without actually solving the issue at hand (data protection, right to privacy) and I therefore welcome the WMF being active here.
Just one thing that is important to me: Since the General Data Protection Directive is currently in the making in the EU, Google is trying to use this terrible court decision as a lobbying tool to remove other unwelcome passages in the legislation. We must be careful not become a pawn in between Google's interests and the data protection advocates.
Both freedom of knowledge and right to privacy are legitimate demands. I believe we should stand up against the court decision and its implementation, not necessary the principle, since even we at Wikipedia do permanently delete some information we consider too personal. The incomprehensible thing here is that the de-indexed data is perfectly legal and remains published, but has to be legally de-indexed.
Just to clarify, I don't think this has happened, I simply want to warn of such a risk. I think WMF Legal is doing a great job on this so far.
Cheers, Dimi
2014-08-06 12:15 GMT+02:00 Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org:
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/000547.html,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131 [3] https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/... [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-tr... [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-... [7] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-s...
-- 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
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-r...
[1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org 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/000547.html,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131 [3] https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/... [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-tr... [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-... [7] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-s...
-- 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
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-r...
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/000547.html,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131 [3] https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/... [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-tr... [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-... [7] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-s...
-- 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
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-r...
[1]:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines
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/000547.html ,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html
[2]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131
[3]
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/...
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-tr...
[6]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-...
[7]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-s...
-- 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
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
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
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
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
How untrue that the victim of any of Wikipedia's biography articles has any genuine recourse. Shall he or she start an account and take it to WP:AN/ANI? No, he or she would be kicked around, accused of conflict of interest, subjected to a dozen or so "investigations" on whim of any of the little administrative participants there, have his or her IP checkusered and probed for idle suspicion, and probably end up with an article more invasive and damaging than it was before.
OTRS email system is riddled with the same people. Literally. The WP:AN/ANI crowd infests it. Another avenue for them to pry and sniff and investigate. How pleasing it is for them to examine the personal pleas of people anguished by the rubbish in their BLPs. And then to turn them down.
The notability and neutral point of view guidelines are similarly applied at whim and caprice of whomever shows up and proceeds to own the article. We saw this in the case of Yank Barry. Those experienced editors took over the article, breathtakingly openly decided they would "threaten his livelihood, and rightly so."
If WMF truly, as Pine W says, has an array of "subtle tools" to contest content or indeed the existence of the BLP itself, I'd be happy to hear him enumerate and expound on it.
Trillium Corsage
07.08.2014, 01:33, "Pine W" <email clipped>:
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" <email clipped> 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."
imedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org