[Foundation-l] wikipedia.de shut down

[Ting Chen]

Yes, I totally agree with Ziko.

The article about Heilmann do had contents that are very questionable. 
There were content that are not proved and that are now removed, that 
must be removed according to our rule of living people biographies.

Heilmann complained through his lawyer at first by WikiMedia 
Deutschland. The chapter answered him that it is not responsible for the 
content on Wikipedia and they would do nothing. I agree with the first 
part of the answer, but I disagree with the second part. I think someone 
should have taken a glance at the complain. If that was done at that 
time, the whole thing would not have happend. And I disagree with people 
who are now happen about the surge in fundraising. This is not our way. 
The case was not so black and white and on the long term it can backfire 
on us.

Our content can ruin people. If someone complains about his biography, 
by OTRS or by a chapter or on village pump or in mailing-list, we should 
take a look at it and not just ignore it.

Ting

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> 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
>