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