for the interested: *Keine weiteren juristischen Schritte gegen Wikipedia* : http://www.lutz-heilmann.info/ 2008/11/16 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>

2008/11/16 Ian A. Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com>om>: Donations to WMDE are apparently coming in very fast because of this: http://wiwowo.blogspot.com/2008/11/internet-cannot-be-censured.html I'm reluctant to advocate upset politicians as a fundraising tool, but ... - d.

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 26 thousand Euro in the last 40 hours. Normal figures appear to be 3000 EUR per day. That's quite impressive. I wonder whether there is an actual net gain.

I don't have any statistics, but I would say the http://www.wikipedia.de is the most common way of accessing Wikipedia in Germany. Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:02 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: In addition to the very large jump (+450%) in donations to the German chapter, there was a small jump (+15%) in donations to the WMF. Now 15% isn't a lot to hang a conclusion on, but I think it is still fair to say that this political chicanery hasn't hurt WMF fundraising efforts either. -Robert Rohde

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I appreciate the motivation, but please let's not go there. The possible issues have some rather serious downsides, ranging from "WMF not being seen as an independent neutral broker of accurate information" to "playing geopolitics for keeps is dangerous". -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

George Herbert wrote: It also needs to be remembered that the people in Germany who may have responded to this incident had the money to give in the first place. The people in Zimbabwe who might be responsive to such a situation are faci8ng hyper-inflation and are unlikely to have the funds to give. Even if we can get past the neutrality and fiscal issue we still don't have a Zimbabwean chapter to reap the benefits. Ec

Gerard Meijssen wrote: ZWD6,000,000.00 = USD193.82, and probably less tomorrow. :-) Ec

So we should send the guy flowers and thank him publicly with a banner for suing us! O:-) Or is that to humiliating for him :) Now let's see which other politicians can we upset to have them start a lawsuit :-D W

In order not to let a wrong impression slip into the collective long-term memory: Heilmann complained about several points in "his" article, some more, some less worth considerable. It was also about his private life. So, reducing it to his Stasi past or saying that he is using "Stasi methods" - as it has been done numerously - would be too shortsighted. (Stasi methods would include socket poppetry, checkusing, and brutal killing making it look like an accident.) In a way, the Heilmann case is somewhere between "Mainland China" and "Seigenthaler". Certainly Heilmann showed an incredible naivity about the Wikimedia universe and the consequences of his legal actions. For a couple of days the media heavily critizised on him, and they were right to do so. But later that issue was out, and a new view came up: several quality (also: non left) newspapers stressed out that the Heilmann case dealt with some serious problems of the Wikipedia principle of openess. We Wikipedians should not think too lighthearty about the case, although we certainly enjoyed the huge public support. Ziko 2008/11/16 Ian A. Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com> -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde

The chapter refused to look at the complaint or take any action at all? Unless there is some legal reason why they can't take responsibility (even as individuals responding to an e-mail complaint), I find that difficult to believe. There must be more to the story, no? Nathan

2008/11/19 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>: Chapters need to tread very carefully in this regard, as appearing to take responsibility for the content may be open to interpretation as taking responsibility for the content. - d.

Right, I wasn't clear. I was thinking it would be strange if the chapter members took no action, as members (even forwarding a complaint to OTRS), and the only explanation I had for that was the legal danger in appearing to take responsibility on behalf of the chapter. As long as they forward the complaint to the correct queue, as Marco says, then I think they are fulfilling their responsibility *as a chapter.* Whether it might have been prudent for an individual in the chapter to take action as an individual, depends on the legal ramifications.

Marco Chiesa wrote: Yes, you are right. I am not sure if in this specifical case the complain was mailed to OTRS. Yes or no, anyway we did not take any action. Ting