German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisions

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:24 pm

They're ignoring it because it gives people ideas on how US personalities can get their licks on Wikipedia without using the US courts. Hulk Hogan can easily demonstrate harm in Germany under this ruling, maybe even from the English language article being available there if they can demonstrate that the environment under which text from en.wiki finds its way into de.wiki has a common thread, namely the faults (choices) identified by the German court. If the WMF has to start ensuing serious Chinese walls exist between its two largest language editions, then they are basically fucked. Bye bye global movement. Hello blocking of en.wiki in Germany, if not the EU.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:53 pm

The EU as a whole follows Germany very closely in jurisprudence, plus their laws are already very similar. Plus, Germany is key in forming new EU law, and that big copyright directive hasn't landed yet, but when it does it is expected to impose a requirement for active checking of content as opposed to passivly waiting for complaints.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:10 pm

If there is one country what is pro Europe it is Germany as long as everything is German what is decided. Mutti Merkel and her cousin Mark Rutte are te ones who decide what happens in the EU under the motto: Wie betaald bepaald. The piper makes the tune and that piper is Germany. If a German judge has decided the language is the key if a side is under German jurisdiction you can be sure that is in every continental EU country the same. If it had been a Italian or a Romanian judge it had been a complete different story. In the EU every country is looking to Multi Merkel or here cousin Mark Rutte, our Prime Minister who always will say, yes aunt Angela, of course you are complete right. Let's do it in that way. As long as a united Europe is a German united Europe it is OK for Germany.

Forget East Europe, forget South Europe, take a bit care of France and a few other Northern country's and forget the rest. They are only a few brown noses who can say waf, waf, thank you for the bones you gave us, madam Merkel, and of course you are right. There was even a rest of meat on it the last time. Thank you.
And that is how Europes is functioning, special now England is leaving. Although leaving..... that is also a misty story. It wouldn't surplice me at all if they stay at the end.


User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:53 pm

Someone call the whaaambulance, we got a sixteen year old here who really doesn't want to take their medicine.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04 ... hat-means/

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:18 am

It is really a piece of madness what Allison Davenport and Jacob Rogers right down here. This are just as huge idiots as Romaine and Gerlach. Because the matter seems clear to me, nobody is above the law, and for sure wikipedia laws, rules not! I really don't understand what is disappointing for them and WMF just has to follow the orders of the german court. Disappointing, what disappointing. In Germany is deformation forbidden.

The ruling stems from a previous lawsuit against the Foundation, originally filed in mid-2018. It asserted that a Wikipedia article’s claim about an academic professor was untrue and defamatory, even though it was backed by a citation to a reliable source.

Well, looks clear to me. In the Germany it is slander and defamation forbidden, in Holland it is even a crime and I think in Germany too. The professor wanted to have removed this out of the history, what is right because everybody still could find it very easy way back the deformation and it even was given free under a CC license, so the judge had no other choice than to order WMF to remove what the professor asked. Beside this, it where lies and could hurt the professor his reputation.

We always have to respect what a cord deside, even if we don't like the decision. Rechters hebben het laatste woord, in Holland a judge spreekt recht in naam van de koning. And the king is boven de wet.
Well, we are very lucky here in Holland it is a nice guy how understand if his is shitting he is just like all of us with his pants on the floor, so he is OK.

(De komt van Heinz Friesen, die zei dat altijd tegen zijn orkest volgens vrouwtje. Let maar niet op de jury want die zitten op de wc ook met hun broek naar beneden. Wat een ontiegelijk kutartikel over Hienz trouwens, en ik had werkelijk een paar geweldige foto's van hem gehad. Net zoal van John van Buren trouwens, zal ze eens opzoeken)

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:26 am

It is really a piece of madness what Allison Davenport and Jacob Rogers right down here. This are just as huge idiots as Romaine and Gerlach. Because the matter seems clear to me, nobody is above the law, and for sure wikipedia laws, rules not! I really don't understand what is disappointing for them and WMF just has to follow the orders of the german court. Disappointing, what disappointing. In Germany is deformation forbidden.

The ruling stems from a previous lawsuit against the Foundation, originally filed in mid-2018. It asserted that a Wikipedia article’s claim about an academic professor was untrue and defamatory, even though it was backed by a citation to a reliable source.

Well, looks clear to me. In the Germany it is slander and defamation forbidden, in Holland it is even a crime and I think in Germany too. The professor wanted to have removed this out of the history, what is right because everybody still could find it very easy way back the deformation and it even was given free under a CC license, so the judge had no other choice than to order WMF to remove what the professor asked. Beside this, it where lies and could hurt the professor his reputation.

We always have to respect what a cord deside, even if we don't like the decision. Rechters hebben het laatste woord, in Holland a judge spreekt recht in naam van de koning. And the king is boven de wet.
Well, we are very lucky here in Holland it is a nice guy how understand if his is shitting he is just like all of us with his pants on the floor, so he is OK.

(De komt van Heinz Friesen, die zei dat altijd tegen zijn orkest volgens vrouwtje. Let maar niet op de jury want die zitten op de wc ook met hun broek naar beneden. Wat een ontiegelijk kutartikel over Hienz trouwens, en ik had werkelijk een paar geweldige foto's van hem gehad. Net zoal van John van Buren trouwens, zal ze eens opzoeken)

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:56 pm

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... tion-case/

“One of the necessary aspects of a never-finished encyclopedia is that mistakes will be made…”


One of the thinks the German court had stipulated was Wikipedia must be as accurate as the press, this is complete in contradiction.

Madam Gender wrote:LOL, “please talk to the people we know never answer their mail.”

They never do I know from my one experience. They have formed the #INeveransweranyemail movement. Maher is a member to, she is just as foolish as the rest.

Should be good job security for the legal team. But then the legal model and the business model of an organization are not always on the same path. Where is management in this? Oh, yeah, stuck in a non-existent strategy process.


There legal team is a bunch of clowns. Because supporting Romaine with his "BrusselsAdvocating Group", supporting the not serieus existing Pirate Party, and the Brussels chapter was a blunder. A very expensive blunder. Jimmy was right not to support the that Brussels Chapter as a board member, complete right.

And again our Fact check, my god. Does "link rot" mean libel?
Renée Bagslint gave the link.

https://www.wikitribune.com/article/98906/

It is not about link rot. It is simple totale nonsense to use this kind of info out of a second source. You must verify a important fact like this out of a very relabel primary sources, otherwise you change in a original fucktchecker. Sometimes you can use a secondair source, sometimes a primary source, and sometimes some original research. You must make a mix, it is a matter of sense.

User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 255 times
Contact:

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by badmachine » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:50 pm

it seems to me that these removals would affect the attribution required by many free content licenses

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:45 am

badmachine wrote:it seems to me that these removals would affect the attribution required by many free content licenses

The changes to copyright law being considered by the EU might have similar effects. Wikipedia cannot function "as usual" in that legal climate.

Someone call the whaaambulance, we got a sixteen year old here who really doesn't want to take their medicine.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04 ... hat-means/

Go and look at the other items Jacob Rogers has written for the WMF blog.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/author/jacob-rogers/
    *"Victory in Greece: Legal case ended against Wikipedia editor"
    *"Victory in Italy: Wikimedia wins lawsuit against former Minister of Defense"
    *"Discussing fake news and the NSA lawsuit at Yale"
    *"Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

That is not the talk of an "educational institution". That is the talk of a cult. A cult that wants copyright and libel law to reflect its own needs, and to hell with everyone else. And they are dealing with their issues with society at large by lawyering up. And having those lawyers write self-serving drivel to post on their blog, which almost no one (outside the cult itself) even knows about.

(By the way, the Wikimedia blog failed to mention that the NSA suit they were co-plaintiffs on was thrown out of court once before. They and the ACLU apparently intends to fight this into the ground. That's where "your donations" are going!)

Who is Jacob Rogers? He's a product of a major Ivy League law school.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacob-rogers-50540120

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: German court says WMF is liable for libel in old revisio

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:56 am

This is what I wrote on Dysk his Wikipediocrazy Dyscord today:


Graaf Statler wrote:It was a rediciles defence of there complete incompetence. The fact is the German/ European defamation laws are extreme strict. In Holland is deformation a crime and in Germany if your rise your middel finger in the traffic it can cost you 3000 euro! Or in public in general. Only for rising your middle finger to a other user of the road. And not he will prosecute you, but the prosecutor and the civil claim is often build in. In Holland chased by the state.

The extreem skilled WMF legal team was as usual spreading complete disinformation. But thank god they have hired the Mike Tyson under the lawyers to safe them, so one uppercut by the WMF's super-lawyer and the shit will be pushed back in to that European prosecutor, to borrow a few idioms of Crow.

Post Reply