(Short intro: I am User:Amire80, editor in Hebrew, Russian and English Wikipedias, and sysop in the English one.)
The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak, a well-known and controversial Jewish preacher, was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.
The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. The editors who worked on it were not vandals and the material was reasonably sourced. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).
Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.
The problem is that it is doesn't seem to be a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdictions goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article and neither the article's editors.
I am sincerely sorry to be a "schtinker". That's a Yiddish word for "informer". The bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia are excellent contributors, thanks to whom the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the very best projects of the WMF. But i am quite sure that they made a mistake in this case. Wikipedia must not censor out sourced material after one feeble legal threat so easily.
Many respected editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia voiced their opposition to this deletion, but the sysops do not agree to restore the deleted versions, saying that they won't do it without proper legal advice. This is understandable; so - can someone from the Foundation Office, who has experience with BLP legal situations help the Hebrew Wikipedia sysops to solve this problem?
Thanks in advance.
Amir:
I am forwarding your email to Mike Godwin for further opinion--but as far as I'm aware, the Foundation was not contacted regarding this matter. I have received no correspondence about it, and I'm not certain that a national chapter should be superseding a community decision.
--
Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 727.231.0101 Fax: 727.258.0207 E-Mail: cbass@wikimedia.org
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
(Short intro: I am User:Amire80, editor in Hebrew, Russian and English Wikipedias, and sysop in the English one.)
The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak, a well-known and controversial Jewish preacher, was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.
The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. The editors who worked on it were not vandals and the material was reasonably sourced. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).
Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.
The problem is that it is doesn't seem to be a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdictions goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article and neither the article's editors.
I am sincerely sorry to be a "schtinker". That's a Yiddish word for "informer". The bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia are excellent contributors, thanks to whom the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the very best projects of the WMF. But i am quite sure that they made a mistake in this case. Wikipedia must not censor out sourced material after one feeble legal threat so easily.
Many respected editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia voiced their opposition to this deletion, but the sysops do not agree to restore the deleted versions, saying that they won't do it without proper legal advice. This is understandable; so - can someone from the Foundation Office, who has experience with BLP legal situations help the Hebrew Wikipedia sysops to solve this problem?
Thanks in advance.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni
English - http://aharoni.wordpress.com Hebrew - http://haharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I agree with Cary here. A local chapter should take the same stance as I know WMUK and FR do: they should inform the person who sent that letter that they do not have an official handle on the content of the wiki, that that is decided by community consensus and that they should contact the actual Wikimedia Foundation by mail if there is a legal request to do with something like BLP.
That being said, WMIL could and should asist the Foundation as much as they can with handling that legal request. (language help, local laws, local practices, etc.)
The important thing is that WMIL is a new org and should make sure it's clear that they are a separate org from the WMF. Otherwise they might set themselves up for some not-so-good situations.
(This is said without knowing the whole situation, of course.)
On 1/27/08, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Amir:
I am forwarding your email to Mike Godwin for further opinion--but as far as I'm aware, the Foundation was not contacted regarding this matter. I have received no correspondence about it, and I'm not certain that a national chapter should be superseding a community decision.
--
Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 727.231.0101 Fax: 727.258.0207 E-Mail: cbass@wikimedia.org
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
(Short intro: I am User:Amire80, editor in Hebrew, Russian and English Wikipedias, and sysop in the English one.)
The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak, a well-known and controversial Jewish preacher, was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.
The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. The editors who worked on it were not vandals and the material was reasonably sourced. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).
Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.
The problem is that it is doesn't seem to be a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdictions goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article and neither the article's editors.
I am sincerely sorry to be a "schtinker". That's a Yiddish word for "informer". The bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia are excellent contributors, thanks to whom the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the very best projects of the WMF. But i am quite sure that they made a mistake in this case. Wikipedia must not censor out sourced material after one feeble legal threat so easily.
Many respected editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia voiced their opposition to this deletion, but the sysops do not agree to restore the deleted versions, saying that they won't do it without proper legal advice. This is understandable; so - can someone from the Foundation Office, who has experience with BLP legal situations help the Hebrew Wikipedia sysops to solve this problem?
Thanks in advance.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni
English - http://aharoni.wordpress.com Hebrew - http://haharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 28/01/2008, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Cary here. A local chapter should take the same stance as I know WMUK and FR do: they should inform the person who sent that letter that they do not have an official handle on the content of the wiki,
The said that they already did that, but the sysops still keep the older versions deleted. They say that they do it to protect their editors from being sued, but I believe that this is an over-reaction and a very dangerous precedent.
... and that they should contact the actual Wikimedia Foundation by mail if there is a legal request to do with something like BLP.
Exactly - and AFAIK they didn't do it yet.
Let me reiterate - I don't have anything against the sysops of he.wiki, and i sincerely hope that the foundation can assist them. I believe that it is the first time that he.wiki is in such an acute BLP situation, but i might be wrong. In any case, it's never too late.
That said, having looked at the current Hebrew article, and being familiar with the most of the incidents, the article is highly POV. That is to say, it may be sourced, but it is still POV. For any Israelis reading this list, Shach and Ovadiah Yoseph made no less outrageous comments in their time, but their articles seem to be far more balanced.
On 28/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That said, having looked at the current Hebrew article, and being familiar with the most of the incidents, the article is highly POV. That is to say, it may be sourced, but it is still POV. For any Israelis reading this list, Shach and Ovadiah Yoseph made no less outrageous comments in their time, but their articles seem to be far more balanced.
The current article also suffers from all the brouhaha around it. It has been edited by several new accounts, which are most probably operated by experienced users whose reaction to the situation is part encyclopedic, part tongue-in-cheek. Certainly not the right way to handle it.
Maybe currently it is the right thing to protect it as WP:OFFICE afterall, but the problem is that WP:OFFICE is not a written policy in he.wiki. I can volunteer to translate it, but i can't provide the legal backing and again - i hope that the foundation can assist here.
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
(Short intro: I am User:Amire80, editor in Hebrew, Russian and English Wikipedias, and sysop in the English one.)
The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak, a well-known and controversial Jewish preacher, was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.
The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. The editors who worked on it were not vandals and the material was reasonably sourced. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).
Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.
The problem is that it is doesn't seem to be a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdictions goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article and neither the article's editors.
I am sincerely sorry to be a "schtinker". That's a Yiddish word for "informer". The bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia are excellent contributors, thanks to whom the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the very best projects of the WMF. But i am quite sure that they made a mistake in this case. Wikipedia must not censor out sourced material after one feeble legal threat so easily.
Many respected editors of the Hebrew Wikipedia voiced their opposition to this deletion, but the sysops do not agree to restore the deleted versions, saying that they won't do it without proper legal advice. This is understandable; so - can someone from the Foundation Office, who has experience with BLP legal situations help the Hebrew Wikipedia sysops to solve this problem?
Thanks in advance.
Hello Amir,
There are different points in your emails, and I would like to take each points in turn.
First, Wikimedia Israel is not the first chapter to receive legal threats and mails from a lawyer. When this happens, the best is to inform the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel.
Second, Wikimedia Israel is not the host provider of the website, as such, it should not be threatened for activity of editors on the website. The host provider is Wikimedia Foundation. The right step to take is the inform the lawyer contacting Wikimedia Israel, that Wikimedia Israel is an independant organization, not a sub-organization of WMF, and that the legal request should be addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation. Several chapters have already been concerned, and have developped templates letters. The best is to ask them for the template and translate it.
Third, since Wikimedia Israel is not the host provider of the project, but simply an association of users, it should be very careful of not providing WP:Office. WP:Office should come from Wikimedia Foundation. Naturally, for communication purpose, Wikimedia Israel can help communication between editors, sysops, WMF etc... but it should make it clear, for its own legal protection, that it is not in charge of content and hosting.
Fourth, administrators and bureaucrats should also clearly understand that they do not have to "obey" a request from Wikimedia Israel.
Fifth, the community of editors, or sysops, or bureaucrats (depending on how you are internally organized) should be the ones deciding and implementing the deletion of an article if THEY feel it is too illegal/diffamatory. If it is their decision, they should not label it WP:Office. It would be a community decision, and an entirely fair decision to make of course !
Sixth, I tend to understand the position of bureaucrats and sysops, refusing to undelete the information ! Once, we had the problem on the french wikipedia. Someone added illegal information. Later, an ip removed the illegal information, and a sysop restored the information removed by the ip. Infortunately, the police is now seeking information, NOT about the original author of the illegal content, but about the poor sysop who unfortunately restored the wrong content ! So, I understand them hesitating to restore the content if it is REALLY bad :-)
Ant
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
[snip]
Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.
There are different points in your emails, and I would like to take each points in turn.
On Jan 28, 2008 8:47 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
First, Wikimedia Israel is not the first chapter to receive legal threats and mails from a lawyer. When this happens, the best is to inform the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Counsel.
And if I may...
Zero: Ask all parties concerned how exactly this all happened and what exactly happened so we have the whole story and not only parts of it.
Having done that, and taking into account Amir's explanation, this is what I understand of the whole event:
1- Wikimedia Israel receives a legal threat per email. 2- After a quick assessment of the article, the persons in charge of treating emails at the WM IL queue decide to forward it to a wikipedia-he bureaucrat for assessment and advice. 3- The bureaucrat decides to delete the article, of his own accord, without any pressure from WM-IL 4- The community does not agree with the deletion 5- The bureaucrat provides "an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE" for his actions 6- Mayhem ensues in the community 7- In the meantime, WM-IL consults with their own lawyer and answer to the email the "boilerplate" email that all chapters use, ie. "WM IL is not the organisation that hosts Wikipedia and therefore cannot edit the content, but here are your options".
I'm not so much trying to blame anyone, I am trying to make light on what happened.
I believe the mistake here is that the trusted person chosen to assess the threat by WM-IL reacted maybe a bit rashly, instead of quietly gathering community members to fix the article, went and deleted it. If indeed the article was as other people in this thread mentionned, ie. highly POV, I totally understand this reaction from the people involved.
So no, administrators and bureaucrat did not ""obey" a request from Wikimedia Israel", they went and did what they thought was the right thing as normal users.
No, administrators and bureaucrat did not invoke WP:OFFICE in the name of Wikimedia Israel or in the name of the Wikimedia Foundation but in Amir's own words "an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE". His interpretation.
Yes, this was blown way out of proportion (my interpretation :-) )
In short, the only thing I see is a lack of clear communication between all parties: chapter/community/bureaucrats/admins, but no-one trying to coerce anyone else into doing something they have no right to do.
Let this be a lesson learned for all parties involved and hope that this will help improve the way these things are treated in the future.
Cheers,
Delphine
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org