I want to thank the Portuguese Wikipedia community in Brazil for their hard work as Wikimedians and especially their dedication to and passion for the free distribution of truthful information. Like other projects, Portuguese Wikipedia represents an amazing collaboration and building of an encyclopedia that will survive for many ages. You share in the honor of constructing something great for the benefit of others.
Although I am not a Portuguese Wikimedian, if I may say so, I am a bit concerned about seeing the situation in Brazil on Portuguese Wikipedia somewhat escalating. May I please suggest consideration of calm and restraint in deciding how the community responds to the situation.
At the Foundation, we have no tolerance for censorship of truthful information. Because of legal ethical rules that apply in the United States, however, my legal team may represent only the Foundation, not community members unfortunately. Nevertheless, with a clear understanding that we are not the lawyers for those members, we often help support them with our extensive global experience when the members are faced with serious unjustified threats. In doing so, of course, we rely on the community to follow its own policies, such as NPOV, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that contributions are factual, legal, and non-infringing. As set out in our terms of usehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use , WMF does not control or influence the content contributed by community members.
In the case of the investigation that has involved one of the members of the community, we fear there is a misunderstanding since we are genuinely surprised by the summaries that have been provided to us. Although we may be mistaken, we actually thought WMF acted quite appropriately in this case with a close focus on the issue. Although I prefer not to go into too much detail given the ongoing matter, as I understand, the Wikimedian approached us when he received an apparent request to appear for questioning as part of an investigation. At that time, at our expense, one of my most senior attorneys at WMF contacted legal counsel in Brazil to seek a better understanding of the risks. Legal counsel advised us about the case in detail, suggesting that, under the circumstances, the risk should be relatively low if certain things (as we understood them) were in fact so. It appeared to us that the Wikimedian agreed. We nevertheless cautioned that the Wikimedian attend any meeting with police officials with legal representation to ensure his rights were adequately protected against unjustified claims.
At that time, there were preliminary inquiries as to whether the Foundation would pay for legal counsel. Under the Legal Fees Assistance Programhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program and the Defense of Contributors policyhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies#Defense_of_Contributors, certain threshold criteria must normally be met. One such criterion is that the user must usually be named as a defendant in a legal action, which was not so here. We nevertheless were in close contact with the Wikimedian as we saw it. If the investigation had escalated, we would have reassessed the need for additional support.
In a later update, we understood that the Wikimedian had obtained legal counsel and that the two attended a productive meeting with the investigator. We also had our Brazilian legal counsel review certain investigation documents, which confirmed our assessment.
There was a request that WMF staff members be interviewed on the community policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. As a general matter, we are not familiar with the policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. We suggested that the Portuguese community play a role in this regard.
We were watching the situation closely and providing guidance where we were able. We care deeply about our community, and, in cases of serious unjustified allegations, we seek to help support the community. Indeed, these types of cases are not uncommon. Experienced in international matters, we are constantly involved in rebutting unjustified allegations worldwide, and, if I may say so, we are often successful at it.
Again I believe that the community should not aggravate the situation to avoid misunderstandings or misperceptions which may unjustly expose community members to unfounded legal threats. For this reason, I reiterate my recommendation of consideration of calm and restraint in assessing and responding to the situation.
Thank you for your genuine concern about free expression and your indignation against unjust censorship. Thank you for collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain for the benefit of the world.
With warm regards,
Geoffbrigham http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):Geoffbrigham
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Not%C3%ADcia-cri...)
?
________________________________ De: Ricardo Navalha ricardo.navalha@gmail.com Para: wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org Enviadas: Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 12:42 Assunto: [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
I want to thank the Portuguese Wikipedia community in Brazil for their hard work as Wikimedians and especially their dedication to and passion for the free distribution of truthful information. Like other projects, Portuguese Wikipedia represents an amazing collaboration and building of an encyclopedia that will survive for many ages. You share in the honor of constructing something great for the benefit of others. Although I am not a Portuguese Wikimedian, if I may say so, I am a bit concerned about seeing the situation in Brazil on Portuguese Wikipedia somewhat escalating. May I please suggest consideration of calm and restraint in deciding how the community responds to the situation. At the Foundation, we have no tolerance for censorship of truthful information. Because of legal ethical rules that apply in the United States, however, my legal team may represent only the Foundation, not community members unfortunately. Nevertheless, with a clear understanding that we are not the lawyers for those members, we often help support them with our extensive global experience when the members are faced with serious unjustified threats. In doing so, of course, we rely on the community to follow its own policies, such as NPOV, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that contributions are factual, legal, and non-infringing. As set out in our terms of use , WMF does not control or influence the content contributed by community members. In the case of the investigation that has involved one of the members of the community, we fear there is a misunderstanding since we are genuinely surprised by the summaries that have been provided to us. Although we may be mistaken, we actually thought WMF acted quite appropriately in this case with a close focus on the issue. Although I prefer not to go into too much detail given the ongoing matter, as I understand, the Wikimedian approached us when he received an apparent request to appear for questioning as part of an investigation. At that time, at our expense, one of my most senior attorneys at WMF contacted legal counsel in Brazil to seek a better understanding of the risks. Legal counsel advised us about the case in detail, suggesting that, under the circumstances, the risk should be relatively low if certain things (as we understood them) were in fact so. It appeared to us that the Wikimedian agreed. We nevertheless cautioned that the Wikimedian attend any meeting with police officials with legal representation to ensure his rights were adequately protected against unjustified claims. At that time, there were preliminary inquiries as to whether the Foundation would pay for legal counsel. Under the Legal Fees Assistance Program and the Defense of Contributors policy, certain threshold criteria must normally be met. One such criterion is that the user must usually be named as a defendant in a legal action, which was not so here. We nevertheless were in close contact with the Wikimedian as we saw it. If the investigation had escalated, we would have reassessed the need for additional support. In a later update, we understood that the Wikimedian had obtained legal counsel and that the two attended a productive meeting with the investigator. We also had our Brazilian legal counsel review certain investigation documents, which confirmed our assessment. There was a request that WMF staff members be interviewed on the community policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. As a general matter, we are not familiar with the policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. We suggested that the Portuguese community play a role in this regard. We were watching the situation closely and providing guidance where we were able. We care deeply about our community, and, in cases of serious unjustified allegations, we seek to help support the community. Indeed, these types of cases are not uncommon. Experienced in international matters, we are constantly involved in rebutting unjustified allegations worldwide, and, if I may say so, we are often successful at it. Again I believe that the community should not aggravate the situation to avoid misunderstandings or misperceptions which may unjustly expose community members to unfounded legal threats. For this reason, I reiterate my recommendation of consideration of calm and restraint in assessing and responding to the situation. Thank you for your genuine concern about free expression and your indignation against unjust censorship. Thank you for collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain for the benefit of the world. With warm regards, Geoffbrigham
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Not%C3%ADcia-cri...) _______________________________________________ WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
O pessoal tava reclamando que a WMF não tava ajudando o Chico (que tava a ser investigado pela PF a pedido do Gilmar Mendes)
Essa ai é a resposta do advogado da WMF _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 December 2012 13:09, Gabriela Cortês gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.brwrote:
?
*De:* Ricardo Navalha ricardo.navalha@gmail.com *Para:* wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Enviadas:* Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 12:42 *Assunto:* [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
I want to thank the Portuguese Wikipedia community in Brazil for their hard work as Wikimedians and especially their dedication to and passion for the free distribution of truthful information. Like other projects, Portuguese Wikipedia represents an amazing collaboration and building of an encyclopedia that will survive for many ages. You share in the honor of constructing something great for the benefit of others. Although I am not a Portuguese Wikimedian, if I may say so, I am a bit concerned about seeing the situation in Brazil on Portuguese Wikipedia somewhat escalating. May I please suggest consideration of calm and restraint in deciding how the community responds to the situation. At the Foundation, we have no tolerance for censorship of truthful information. Because of legal ethical rules that apply in the United States, however, my legal team may represent only the Foundation, not community members unfortunately. Nevertheless, with a clear understanding that we are not the lawyers for those members, we often help support them with our extensive global experience when the members are faced with serious unjustified threats. In doing so, of course, we rely on the community to follow its own policies, such as NPOV, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that contributions are factual, legal, and non-infringing. As set out in our terms of usehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use , WMF does not control or influence the content contributed by community members. In the case of the investigation that has involved one of the members of the community, we fear there is a misunderstanding since we are genuinely surprised by the summaries that have been provided to us. Although we may be mistaken, we actually thought WMF acted quite appropriately in this case with a close focus on the issue. Although I prefer not to go into too much detail given the ongoing matter, as I understand, the Wikimedian approached us when he received an apparent request to appear for questioning as part of an investigation. At that time, at our expense, one of my most senior attorneys at WMF contacted legal counsel in Brazil to seek a better understanding of the risks. Legal counsel advised us about the case in detail, suggesting that, under the circumstances, the risk should be relatively low if certain things (as we understood them) were in fact so. It appeared to us that the Wikimedian agreed. We nevertheless cautioned that the Wikimedian attend any meeting with police officials with legal representation to ensure his rights were adequately protected against unjustified claims. At that time, there were preliminary inquiries as to whether the Foundation would pay for legal counsel. Under the Legal Fees Assistance Programhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program and the Defense of Contributors policyhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies#Defense_of_Contributors, certain threshold criteria must normally be met. One such criterion is that the user must usually be named as a defendant in a legal action, which was not so here. We nevertheless were in close contact with the Wikimedian as we saw it. If the investigation had escalated, we would have reassessed the need for additional support. In a later update, we understood that the Wikimedian had obtained legal counsel and that the two attended a productive meeting with the investigator. We also had our Brazilian legal counsel review certain investigation documents, which confirmed our assessment. There was a request that WMF staff members be interviewed on the community policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. As a general matter, we are not familiar with the policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. We suggested that the Portuguese community play a role in this regard. We were watching the situation closely and providing guidance where we were able. We care deeply about our community, and, in cases of serious unjustified allegations, we seek to help support the community. Indeed, these types of cases are not uncommon. Experienced in international matters, we are constantly involved in rebutting unjustified allegations worldwide, and, if I may say so, we are often successful at it. Again I believe that the community should not aggravate the situation to avoid misunderstandings or misperceptions which may unjustly expose community members to unfounded legal threats. For this reason, I reiterate my recommendation of consideration of calm and restraint in assessing and responding to the situation. Thank you for your genuine concern about free expression and your indignation against unjust censorship. Thank you for collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain for the benefit of the world. With warm regards, Geoffbrigham http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):Geoffbrigham
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Not%C3%ADcia-cri...)
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
Obrigada Beria. Não entendi o que ele disse. Obrigada se alguém puder explicar.
Gabi
________________________________ De: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com Para: Gabriela Cortês gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.br; Lista de emails da Wikimedia Brasil. wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org Enviadas: Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 14:19 Assunto: Re: [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
O pessoal tava reclamando que a WMF não tava ajudando o Chico (que tava a ser investigado pela PF a pedido do Gilmar Mendes)
Essa ai é a resposta do advogado da WMF _____ Béria Lima
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.
On 1 December 2012 13:09, Gabriela Cortês gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.br wrote:
?
De: Ricardo Navalha ricardo.navalha@gmail.com Para: wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org Enviadas: Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 12:42 Assunto: [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
I want to thank the Portuguese Wikipedia community in Brazil for their hard work as Wikimedians and especially their dedication to and passion for the free distribution of truthful information. Like other projects, Portuguese Wikipedia represents an amazing collaboration and building of an encyclopedia that will survive for many ages. You share in the honor of constructing something great for the benefit of others. Although I am not a Portuguese Wikimedian, if I may say so, I am a bit concerned about seeing the situation in Brazil on Portuguese Wikipedia somewhat escalating. May I please suggest consideration of calm and restraint in deciding how the community responds to the situation. At the Foundation, we have no tolerance for censorship of truthful information. Because of legal ethical rules that apply in the United States, however, my legal team may represent only the Foundation, not community members unfortunately. Nevertheless, with a clear understanding that we are not the lawyers for those members, we often help support them with our extensive global experience when the members are faced with serious unjustified threats. In doing so, of course, we rely on the community to follow its own policies, such as NPOV, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that contributions are factual, legal, and non-infringing. As set out in our terms of use , WMF does not control or influence the content contributed by community members. In the case of the investigation that has involved one of the members of the community, we fear there is a misunderstanding since we are genuinely surprised by the summaries that have been provided to us. Although we may be mistaken, we actually thought WMF acted quite appropriately in this case with a close focus on the issue. Although I prefer not to go into too much detail given the ongoing matter, as I understand, the Wikimedian approached us when he received an apparent request to appear for questioning as part of an investigation. At that time, at our expense, one of my most senior attorneys at WMF contacted legal counsel in Brazil to seek a better understanding of the risks. Legal counsel advised us about the case in detail, suggesting that, under the circumstances, the risk should be relatively low if certain things (as we understood them) were in fact so. It appeared to us that the Wikimedian agreed. We nevertheless cautioned that the
Wikimedian attend any meeting with police officials with legal representation to ensure his rights were adequately protected against unjustified claims.
At that time, there were preliminary inquiries as to whether the Foundation would pay for legal counsel. Under the Legal Fees Assistance Program and the Defense of Contributors policy, certain threshold criteria must normally be met. One such criterion is that the user must usually be named as a defendant in a legal action, which was not so here. We nevertheless were in close contact with the Wikimedian as we saw it. If the investigation had escalated, we would have reassessed the need for additional support. In a later update, we understood that the Wikimedian had obtained legal counsel and that the two attended a productive meeting with the investigator. We also had our Brazilian legal counsel review certain investigation documents, which confirmed our assessment. There was a request that WMF staff members be interviewed on the community policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. As a general matter, we are not familiar with the policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. We suggested that the Portuguese community play a role in this regard. We were watching the situation closely and providing guidance where we were able. We care deeply about our community, and, in cases of serious unjustified allegations, we seek to help support the community. Indeed, these types of cases are not uncommon. Experienced in international matters, we are constantly involved in rebutting unjustified allegations worldwide, and, if I may say so, we are often successful at it. Again I believe that the community should not aggravate the situation to avoid misunderstandings or misperceptions which may unjustly expose community members to unfounded legal threats. For this reason, I reiterate my recommendation of consideration of calm and restraint in assessing and responding to the situation. Thank you for your genuine concern about free expression and your indignation against unjust censorship. Thank you for collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain for the benefit of the world. With warm regards, Geoffbrigham
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Not%C3%ADcia-cri...) _______________________________________________ WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
Basicamente ele diz que a WMF tava ajudando o Chico desde o começo (o que é verdade e eu posso comprovar pq eu mesmo que pus o chico em contacto com eles a mais de um mês), que o programa de ajuda legal não se aplica ainda pq o chico ainda não está sendo acusado formalmente de nada, que eles contactaram os especialistas em leis brasileiras e eles dizeram que não era pra se preocupar pq pela analise da situação o Gilmar não tem como criar um processo em cima dos fatos. E que eles continuam a monitorar a situação e queriam que a comunidade permanecesse unida e nao criasse uma cruzada contra a fundação. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 December 2012 13:24, Gabriela Cortês gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.brwrote:
Obrigada Beria. Não entendi o que ele disse. Obrigada se alguém puder explicar.
Gabi
*De:* Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com *Para:* Gabriela Cortês gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.br; Lista de emails da Wikimedia Brasil. wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Enviadas:* Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 14:19 *Assunto:* Re: [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
O pessoal tava reclamando que a WMF não tava ajudando o Chico (que tava a ser investigado pela PF a pedido do Gilmar Mendes)
Essa ai é a resposta do advogado da WMF _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 December 2012 13:09, Gabriela Cortês <gabrielacortes1985@yahoo.com.br
wrote:
?
*De:* Ricardo Navalha ricardo.navalha@gmail.com *Para:* wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Enviadas:* Sábado, 1 de Dezembro de 2012 12:42 *Assunto:* [Wikimedia Brasil] Statement from WMF General Counsel
I want to thank the Portuguese Wikipedia community in Brazil for their hard work as Wikimedians and especially their dedication to and passion for the free distribution of truthful information. Like other projects, Portuguese Wikipedia represents an amazing collaboration and building of an encyclopedia that will survive for many ages. You share in the honor of constructing something great for the benefit of others. Although I am not a Portuguese Wikimedian, if I may say so, I am a bit concerned about seeing the situation in Brazil on Portuguese Wikipedia somewhat escalating. May I please suggest consideration of calm and restraint in deciding how the community responds to the situation. At the Foundation, we have no tolerance for censorship of truthful information. Because of legal ethical rules that apply in the United States, however, my legal team may represent only the Foundation, not community members unfortunately. Nevertheless, with a clear understanding that we are not the lawyers for those members, we often help support them with our extensive global experience when the members are faced with serious unjustified threats. In doing so, of course, we rely on the community to follow its own policies, such as NPOV, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that contributions are factual, legal, and non-infringing. As set out in our terms of usehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use , WMF does not control or influence the content contributed by community members. In the case of the investigation that has involved one of the members of the community, we fear there is a misunderstanding since we are genuinely surprised by the summaries that have been provided to us. Although we may be mistaken, we actually thought WMF acted quite appropriately in this case with a close focus on the issue. Although I prefer not to go into too much detail given the ongoing matter, as I understand, the Wikimedian approached us when he received an apparent request to appear for questioning as part of an investigation. At that time, at our expense, one of my most senior attorneys at WMF contacted legal counsel in Brazil to seek a better understanding of the risks. Legal counsel advised us about the case in detail, suggesting that, under the circumstances, the risk should be relatively low if certain things (as we understood them) were in fact so. It appeared to us that the Wikimedian agreed. We nevertheless cautioned that the Wikimedian attend any meeting with police officials with legal representation to ensure his rights were adequately protected against unjustified claims. At that time, there were preliminary inquiries as to whether the Foundation would pay for legal counsel. Under the Legal Fees Assistance Programhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program and the Defense of Contributors policyhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies#Defense_of_Contributors, certain threshold criteria must normally be met. One such criterion is that the user must usually be named as a defendant in a legal action, which was not so here. We nevertheless were in close contact with the Wikimedian as we saw it. If the investigation had escalated, we would have reassessed the need for additional support. In a later update, we understood that the Wikimedian had obtained legal counsel and that the two attended a productive meeting with the investigator. We also had our Brazilian legal counsel review certain investigation documents, which confirmed our assessment. There was a request that WMF staff members be interviewed on the community policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. As a general matter, we are not familiar with the policies applicable to Portuguese Wikipedia. We suggested that the Portuguese community play a role in this regard. We were watching the situation closely and providing guidance where we were able. We care deeply about our community, and, in cases of serious unjustified allegations, we seek to help support the community. Indeed, these types of cases are not uncommon. Experienced in international matters, we are constantly involved in rebutting unjustified allegations worldwide, and, if I may say so, we are often successful at it. Again I believe that the community should not aggravate the situation to avoid misunderstandings or misperceptions which may unjustly expose community members to unfounded legal threats. For this reason, I reiterate my recommendation of consideration of calm and restraint in assessing and responding to the situation. Thank you for your genuine concern about free expression and your indignation against unjust censorship. Thank you for collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain for the benefit of the world. With warm regards, Geoffbrigham http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):Geoffbrigham
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/geral/Not%C3%ADcia-cri...)
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
I am entirely unsure on how to respond to this, but I'll give it a try. First, I'd like to state clearly that while WMF legal department did ask to be kept informed no assistance was given to me beyond a simple, "it is probably in your best interest to take legal counsel with you when you are questioned".
The feeling I got from the responses received was that it was entirely my responsibility to procure adequate counsel. A feeling that was only heightened by not only the refusal to ask WMF employees to speak about Wikipedia's very basic rules but also by the request to stop copying a few friends that are also WMF employees on the emails.
In fact I was told on no uncertain terms that due to the case taking place in Brazil WMF and its employees could not "directly participate in the process". Leaving a seemly empty promise to "work behind the scenes to support" me. My response to these statements remained unanswered, all of witch contributed to my statement that I did contact WMF's legal department and got no assistance from it.
Furthermore, I do not even see in you statement, Mr. Brigham, anything that would speak to the contrary. What I do see are justifications on why the correct procedure is to not give a person in my situation any assistance, primarily due to me not being (yet) cited as a defendant on a legal action.
Of course, WMF is not answerable criminally to this situation as I am; and the license is very clear in trying to remove all civil liability from the foundation as well. I did however, expect a higher standard from WMF and I was undoubtedly disappointed by the lack of assistance.
If my view of the situation is mistaken and WMF in fact intends on assisting me in this case I offer my deepest apologies for the misunderstanding.
With warm regards,
Chico Venancio http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Chicocvenancio ( discussãohttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Chicocvenancio) 22h01min de 2 de dezembro de 2012 (UTC)
ps: Pretendo traduzir a colocação original e minha resposta em breve (se ninguém o fizer antes).
2012/12/1 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
que o programa de ajuda legal não se aplica ainda pq o chico ainda n
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/04/two-german-courts-rule-in-favor-of-fre...
Posted by Michelle Paulson https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/mpaulson/ on December 4th, 2012
German courts handed down two decisions this summer that represent significant legal victories for the Wikimedia community and the entire free-knowledge movement in Germany. The District Court of Tübingenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCbingen in *Prof. Dr. Matthias Asche v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc*. and the* * District* *Court of Schweinfurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt in *Peter Deeg v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.***each issued rulings in two different cases in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation. The former case concerned the German right of personality of a living person; the latter concerned the post-mortem right of personality. Both decisions contain several insightful legal observations on the right of personality online, which we feel are worth highlighting and sharing with the Wikimedia community.
*Asche v. Wikimedia Foundation*
In June 2012, Professor Matthias Asche brought suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, objecting to content in a German-language Wikipedia article and asserting a violation of his personality rights.[1] In particular, he wished to eliminate any mention of his membership in several Catholic student associations.
Asche offered to settle the suit if the Foundation would remove the content that Asche found objectionable, thereby circumventing community processes. We could not consent to a settlement that set the precedent of censoring lawful and accurate content, which community members had already determined to meet the high standards of sensitivity, veracity and neutrality laid out in Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (“BLP”) policyhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artikel_%C3%BCber_lebende_Personen. It was also undisputed that the information at issue was both accurate and freely available on several other websites under Asche’s authorization.
With this lawsuit, the right of individuals and entities to publish and disseminate truthful biographical information on the Internet came under attack. The Foundation’s mission is to facilitate the robust exchange of ideas and information and, more ambitiously, to provide global unfettered access to free knowledge. Thus, rather than compromise on the movement’s core principles, we chose to defend our community’s right to contribute factual information to biographical articles.
The German right of personality is broader than the analogous U.S. right of publicity. U.S. law prohibits unauthorized*commercial* use of individual’s name or likeness,[2] but German law goes further in securing an autonomous area of private life for the individual regardless of commerciality. To that end, Germany often protects the right to informational self-determination, i.e. the right of the individual to decide when and to what extent personal facts are publicly disclosed. Asche argued that, under German law, it was unlawful to make content available concerning an individual without that individual’s prior explicit consent in spite of the availability of that same information elsewhere on the Internet.
However, the Foundation maintained–and the court ultimately agreed–the right of personality in Germany is not absolute; rather, the subject’s interest in informational self-determination must be weighed against the interests of Wikimedia users and the general public.[3]
As the German Federal Constitutional Court has previously ruled, absent a truly compelling justification, the individual must tolerate adverse effects resulting from third party reactions to publication of true facts.[4] “Compelling” justifications may include discrimination against the individual in question, social exclusion and isolation, and likeliness of a widespread impact. Such justifications were absent in this case.
Furthermore, the court recognized that the rigid enforcement of the right of personality would inevitably impede the shared mission of the Wikimedia movement to create and grow, among other projects, a “free encyclopedia.” The court determined that the public has a significant interest in having a comprehensive and freely accessible source of knowledge[5] and Wikimedia similarly has an interest in making available truthful facts under freedom of the press. The court found that this public interest and the need to preserve the freedom of the press constituted substantially important interests that outweighed Asche’s right of personality.
Thus, in a victory for our community and the wider Wikimedia movement, the court ruled that the balance of interests favors the Foundation and that the content at issue could remain in the article undisturbed.
***Peter Deeg v. Wikimedia Foundation* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schweinfurt-009.jpg
Schweinfurt courthouse.
Another recent decision concerns the German right of personality of a deceased individual. In this case, the plaintiff, Peter Deeg, claimed that he had asked the Foundation to delete a German-language Wikipedia article featuring biographical information about his deceased father (also named Peter Deeg).[6] The plaintiff objected to a statement in the article that his father was re-admitted into the legal profession in 1952. The plaintiff also asserted that his father left the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party) earlier than the article stated. The plaintiff filed a complaint to take down the article altogether.
The Foundation decided to contest the claim on behalf of the German Wikipedia community. Ultimately, the district court ruled that there was no violation of the post-mortem right of personality, and refused to grant a judgment to forcibly remove the article from Wikipedia.
Under German law, the post-mortem personality right protects the deceased from false assertions, defamation, humiliation and damaging statements concerning his life and achievements.[7] However, while the right of personality of living persons can be far-reaching (as discussed above), the post-mortem right is narrower in scope. Immediate relatives may forbid statements about the deceased only if the statements violate criminal defamation law or heavily distort the facts.
The court held that even if, as the plaintiff claimed, certain allegedly false statements were in fact inaccurate, the article in its entirety did not constitute a distortion of the subject’s life and achievements. The court ruled that the article on the plaintiff’s father did not contain any statements that violated the subject’s post-mortem personality rights.
*Conclusion*
The Wikimedia Foundation continues to defend the rights of our community around the world to create, edit, teach, learn and inspire. We hope that this snapshot of two recent legal victories helps give a glimpse into the kinds of challenges and opportunities facing Wikimedia and our shared mission on the frontlines of the free knowledge movement.
*Michelle Paulson, Legal Counsel* *Rubina Kwon, Legal Intern*
* Because Germany is a civil law jurisdiction and not a common law country (like the U.S.), the Tübingen and Schweinfurt decisions are not binding on other German courts.[8] However, the judicial analysis creates a “practical precedent” with significant persuasive authority.
** Mr. Deeg recently filed an appeal in his case, which the Wikimedia Foundation is committed to oppose. ------------------------------
*References*
1. Professor Asche specializes in history and political science at the University of Tübingen.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States
3. The court recognized that true statements must generally be accepted even if they are disadvantageous or inconvenient to the individual. A true statement can violate a person’s personality rights only if it threatens to damage the person in a way that is disproportionate to the interest in publication of that fact.
4. BVerfG, NJW 2011, 47; BVerfG NJW 1998, 2889.
5. Art. 5 I 1 2.Alt. GG, 10 I 1 EMRK.
6. We have no record of any correspondence from Mr. Deeg prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
7. German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfG, Beschluss v. 24.2.1971 BvR 435/68.
8. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Images_in_German_Posta...
- Copyright Notes:: "Schweinfurt-009"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schweinfurt-009.jpg by Dr. Volkmar Rudolf, under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unportedhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, from Wikimedia Commons -
2012/12/2 Chico Venancio chicocvenancio@gmail.com
I am entirely unsure on how to respond to this, but I'll give it a try. First, I'd like to state clearly that while WMF legal department did ask to be kept informed no assistance was given to me beyond a simple, "it is probably in your best interest to take legal counsel with you when you are questioned".
The feeling I got from the responses received was that it was entirely my responsibility to procure adequate counsel. A feeling that was only heightened by not only the refusal to ask WMF employees to speak about Wikipedia's very basic rules but also by the request to stop copying a few friends that are also WMF employees on the emails.
In fact I was told on no uncertain terms that due to the case taking place in Brazil WMF and its employees could not "directly participate in the process". Leaving a seemly empty promise to "work behind the scenes to support" me. My response to these statements remained unanswered, all of witch contributed to my statement that I did contact WMF's legal department and got no assistance from it.
Furthermore, I do not even see in you statement, Mr. Brigham, anything that would speak to the contrary. What I do see are justifications on why the correct procedure is to not give a person in my situation any assistance, primarily due to me not being (yet) cited as a defendant on a legal action.
Of course, WMF is not answerable criminally to this situation as I am; and the license is very clear in trying to remove all civil liability from the foundation as well. I did however, expect a higher standard from WMF and I was undoubtedly disappointed by the lack of assistance.
If my view of the situation is mistaken and WMF in fact intends on assisting me in this case I offer my deepest apologies for the misunderstanding.
With warm regards,
Chico Venancio http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Chicocvenancio (discussãohttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Chicocvenancio) 22h01min de 2 de dezembro de 2012 (UTC)
ps: Pretendo traduzir a colocação original e minha resposta em breve (se ninguém o fizer antes).
2012/12/1 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
que o programa de ajuda legal não se aplica ainda pq o chico ainda n
-- Chico Venancio @chicocvenancio http://www.twitter.com/chicocvenancio http://www.chicocvenancio.com
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
Segue uma tradução da declaração original e de minha resposta:
*Declaração do Geoff Brigham:*
Quero agradecer a comunidade da Wikipédia em português no Brasil por seu trabalho árduo como wikimedianos e especialmente pela dedicação e paixão pela livre distribuição de informações verídicas. Como outros projetos, a Wikipédia em português representa uma incrível colaboração e construção de uma enciclopédia que sobreviverá por muitas eras. Vocês compartilham a honra de construir algo grande pelo benefício de outros.
Apesar de não ser um wikimediano lusófono, se me permitem dizer, estou um pouco preocupado com a situação no Brasil na Wikipédia em português aumentando de tamanho. Posso, por favor, sugerir que considerem calma e moderação em decidir como a comunidade responderá a essa situação.
Na Fundação não temos tolerância por censura de informações verídicas. Devido a regras éticas legais que se aplicam aos Estados Unidos, entretanto, meu time legal pode representar somente a Fundação, excluindo membros da comunidade infelizmente. Ainda assim, com uma clara percepção que não somos advogados desses membros, constantemente ajudamos a eles com a nossa extensa experiência global quando os membros se deparam com ameaças sérias injustificadas. Ao fazê-lo, é claro, contamos com a comunidade para seguir a suas próprias políticas, como PDI [NPOV], e para tomar as medidas necessárias para garantir que as contribuições são verdadeiras, legais e não infringentes. Como colocado em nossas condições de uso [terms of use], a WMF não controla ou influência o conteúdo contribuídos por membros da comunidade.
No caso da investigação que envolveu um dos membros da comunidade, tememos que houve um mal-entendido dado que estamos genuinamente surpreendidos com os sumários que foram providos a nós. Apesar de que podemos estar enganados, acreditamos que a WMF agiu bem apropriadamente nesse caso com um foco próximo à questão. Apesar de que prefiro não entrar em muitos detalhes dado a continuidade da situação, como eu compreendo, o Wikimediano nos abordou quando recebeu um aparente pedido para se apresentar para depoimento como parte de uma investigação. A esse ponto, a nosso custo, uma de minhas advogadas com mais alto gabarito na WMF contatou advogados brasileiros para buscar uma compreensão maior sobre os riscos. Esses advogados nos aconselharam sobre o caso em detalhes, sugerindo que, sob as circunstâncias, o risco deveria ser relativamente baixo se certas coisas (como nós havíamos as compreendido) de fato fossem verdade. Aparentemente o Wikimediano concordou. Nós, de qualquer forma, avisamos que o Wikimediano deveria comparecer a qualquer encontro com policiais acompanhado de advogado para garantir que seus direitos estariam adequadamente protegidos de pedidos injustificados.
Nesse momento, houve inquisições preliminares sobre se a fundação pagaria por advogados. Sobe o "Legal Fees Assistance Program" e pela "Defense of Contributors policy", alguns critérios precisam ser passados normalmente. Um desses critérios é que o usuário deve geralmente ser citado como réu em uma ação legal, o que não era o caso aqui. De qualquer forma estivemos em próximo contato com o Wikimediano da forma que vimos. Se a investigação tivesse escalado, teríamos reavaliado a necessidade de ajuda adicional.
Em uma mensagem posterior, compreendemos que o Wikimediano havia conseguido um advogado e que os dois foram a uma reunião produtiva com a investigadora. Também pedimos aos nossos advogados no Brasil que revisassem alguns documentos da investigação, quando confirmaram as nossas avaliações.
Houve um pedido para que funcionários da WMF fossem entrevistados sobre as políticas aplicáveis à Wikipédia em Português. Como regra, nós não estamos familiarizados com as políticas aplicáveis à Wikipédia em Português. Sugerimos que a comunidade lusófona participasse nessa condição.
Estávamos observando a situação de perto e dando ajuda aonde podíamos. Preocupamos-nos profundamente com a nossa comunidade, e, em casos de alegações sérias injustificadas, tentamos ajudar a comunidade. De fato, esses casos não são incomuns. Experientes em casos internacionais, estamos constantemente envolvidos em refutar alegações injustificadas por todo o mundo, e, se me permitem dizer, com frequência temos êxito.
Novamente, acredito que a comunidade não deveria agravar a situação para evitar mal-entendidos ou más impressões que podem injustamente expor membros da comunidade a ameaças legais sem fundamento. Por esse motivo, reitero a minha recomendação de considerarem calma e moderação ao avaliar e responder à situação.
Obrigado pela preocupação genuína sobre a liberdade de expressão e por sua indignação contra censura injusta. Obrigado por coletar e desenvolver conteúdo educacional sob uma licença livre ou sob domínio público para o benefício do mundo.
Cordiais cumprimentos,
Geoffbrigham [Tradução por Chico Venanciohttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Chicocvenancio (discussãohttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Chicocvenancio) 03h49min de 3 de dezembro de 2012 (UTC)]
*Minha resposta:*
* *Não tenho a mínima certeza de como responder a isso, mas farei uma tentativa. Em primeiro lugar, gostaria de deixar claro que enquanto o departamento legal da WMF pediu para ser mantido informado nenhuma assistência me foi dada além de um simples "provavelmente é no seu melhor interesse levar um advogado com você quando fores questionado".
O sentimento com que fiquei a partir das respostas recebidas foi que era inteiramente minha responsabilidade adquirir assistência legal adequada. Um sentimento que só aumentou não só com a recusa da WMF de pedir para funcionários da WMF falarem sobre as políticas básicas da Wikipédia, mas também pelo pedido de que eu parasse de copiar alguns amigos que também são empregados da WMF nos e-mails.
Na realidade, me foi passado em termos claros que devido o caso ser no Brasil a WMF e seus empregados não poderiam participar diretamente do processo. Deixando uma promessa vazia de que poderiam trabalhar por trás dos panos para me auxiliar. Minha resposta a essas colocações não foi respondida, contribuindo para a minha afirmação de que contatei o departamento legal da WMF e não recebi nenhuma ajuda.
Além disso, não vejo em sua declaração, Sr. Brigham, nada que contrarie essa visão. O que eu vejo são justificativas de porque o procedimento correto é não dar assistência alguma a uma pessoa em minha situação, principalmente por eu não ser (ainda) réu em uma ação legal.
É claro que a WMF não é responsável criminalmente nessa situação como eu sou; e que a licença é bem clara em tentar remover toda a responsabilidade civil da fundação também. Entretanto, eu esperava um padrão mais alto da WMF e fiquei indubitavelmente decepcionado com a falta de assistência.
Se a minha visão da situação está enganada e a Fundação de fato pretende me dar assistência nesse caso eu ofereço minhas desculpas pelo mal-entendido.
Cordiais cumprimentos,
Chico Venancio http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Chicocvenancio
wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org