For a start, make sure you have consulted a lawyer. If you can't afford a lawyer, or they won't take their fee from any damages, then give up now. It sucks, it is unfair, but this is the reality of Wikipedia. Take solace from the fact that it is exactly because they are deliberately like this, that their brand is losing its lustre and donations are falling.
Do not under any circumstances try to engage Wikipedia as an ordinary citizen, either directly or simply asking for help. Do not believe anything you have read in the media that claims this is a sensible idea or that they welcome it. This is mostly just regurgitated promotional material. The media pays virtually no attention to how Wikipedia really works. They don't know Jack about what really goes on.
For a start, going down this route means you will be talking to or interacting with the volunteer editors, not the owners of the website (who are the source of much of the press material you will encounter). The owners don't really know and frankly don't care how the volunteers go about interacting with outsiders who have a grievance against Wikipedia. And if your grievance is not serious enough to sue over, they really won't care, and will direct you to the volunteers. In their eyes, you're not a donor and you're not likely to be sticking around as a volunteer yourself, so who gives a shit, right?
Wikipedia is a corporation under U.S. law, so first ask the lawyer if the content violates any relevant U.S. statute. Believe it or not, the ridiculously liberal America does have laws designed to protect people from harm. Crazy but true. Remember to check all the old revisions of the article in the history too. If you can see old versions which harm you but the current article seems to have been fixed, be aware that these old versions can be restored at any time.
You may have heard it suggested that Wikipedia cannot be sued in foreign courts, or doing so is pointless because Wikipedia is not subject to their decisions. This is a half truth told by the apologists and defenders of Wikipedia. It's never been strictly true in the sense many people take legal action simply to raise awareness and influence public opinion, but it is even less relevant now that Wikipedia is most definitely running scared about the many ways foreign courts can impact their increasingly global movement in a very real way with the more powerful internet regulation laws that are in vogue in territories like the UK and the EU.
If your are already lost and don't know your revisons from your rear end, don't worry, this is quite normal. The interface and terminology of Wikipedia is incredibly complicated and opaque by design. This is their first line of defence against unhappy people who have no intention of becoming a volunteer, they just want to correct something. Wikipedia has no qualms at all about the victims of its website sitting at home feeling helpless and stupid.
Note that there is no prominent button anywhere on Wikipedia to report an issue, no matter how serious or urgent. This should give you pause, if you're minded to believe the press releases or information for begjnners that imply Wikipedia is an open and responsive/ible project. The real Wikipedia is hidden in the tiny "Contact Us" button, which makes It clear that they will NOT resolve any disputes via email, and pretty much every suggested point of contact either leads you to a volunteer directly, or turns you into one by virtue of asking (forcing) you to interact with the volunteers on their terms.
All of this is very good reason why your first and only contact with Wikipedia should be through a lawyer via official channels. It is especially good advice for anyone who thinks the Wikipedia volunteers might resist correcting or removing the offending content. Do not underestimate how unreasonable volunteers might be.
In their minds, the principle that Wikipedia is not censored and these volunteers are allowed to be anonymous, means volunteers often wrongly assume Wikipedia can say whatever they like. This is after all an organisation where volunteers are explicitly allowed to tell each other to fuck off (whereas press releases will tell you Wikipedia aims to be a respectful environment). They are unprofessional in every sense of the word. Lying bastards, truth be told.
The fact that volunteers are often bored, lazy, ignorant, addicted to Wikipedia, in love with Wikipedia, attracted to conflict, paranoid, depressed, or just starved of meaning in their lives, means that you run the very real risk of even the most seemingly benign and polite requests for help, turning really bad, really fast. You probably won't even see it comng, precisely because as an outsider, you don't just not understand the rules, you won't understand the culture. Not even the slang.
Wikipedia has a policy that says don't speak in impenetrable terminology or acronyms. It is of course widely ignored. Where's the fun in speaking in plain English? The fun for them, the void Wikipedia fills in their lives, is feeling like you are part of a "community". You are not part of that community. You stand out like a sore thumb. Come to them with a complaint about Wikipedia, especially if it is about how the community has failed in some way, and they will be dying to torture you, punish you for your impudence and show off their power and knowledge. Why give them the satisfaction? Legally speaking, and morally too, they are nothing to you. Be in no doubt, that is how they view you.
It is not unheard of for people who become a volunteer solely to try and fix a single issue, if they make the slightest mistep or any kind of noise, to be banned from Wikipedia. Never to be let back in unless or until they demonstrate a commitment to the goals and purpose of Wikipedia. Seriously. They will ask you to suggest what other entirely unrelated articles you intend to improve, as the price to pay for letting you back in to fix yours. if you tell the truth and say your interest in Wikipedia begins and ends with your issue, you are toast. Extortion. Perfectly normal and routine to them. They genuinely live in a different world.
Perversely, something that is absolutely guaranteed to get volunteers excited and try even harder to get you expelled for perceived crimes against Wikipedia, is if you try to edit Wikipedia to change content that is about you or otherwise effects you. They hate that. And yet if you instead make a request and wait for someone else to do it, you can be waiting a very long time. A very long time indeed.
They are volunteers, so In their minds, they don't have to do shit for anyone. It's quite literally a hobby for them. A way to pass the time. No surprise then that they often do just that, nothing. I kid you not, I have seen the volunteers refuse to make an edit requested by none other than Jimmy Wales himself.
I have to admit, it was pretty sweet vindication to see the very man who publicly denounced anyone who tries to edit Wikipedia directly in their own interests and instead work with Wikipedia, be absolutely ignored by the volunteers when he came to them on behalf of an acquaintance who wasn't happy and naturally thought the Founder of Wikipedia might be able to help. Out an abundance of caution, Jimmy dared not edit an article directly on behalf of an acquaintance.
The press of course carried his earlier denouncement of this general practice and his recommendation. They ignored his later humiliation when he tried to walk the walk. Yet more proof you cannot trust what you read in the media if it purports to tell you how Wikipedia supposedly works and the source is someone who doesn't actually spend much time editing Wikipedia or carry much authority over the "community". Most people are shocked to learn these both accurately describe Jimmy these days.
So, hopefully you are convinced of the merits of only interacting with Wikipedia through a lawyer. At this point I will reiterate something that Wikipedia understandably likes to keep under the table. There is nothing in the laws that compels you to deal with Wikipedia volunteers at any stage of a dispute. And how could it? They do not represent Wikipedia in the eyes of the law. Wikipedia's choice to exploit volunteers for free labour, even in ways that to an outsider look incredibly like they are meant to be representing or speaking for Wikipedia in some capacity, is no reason for you to go along with it.
Remember the Contact Us link? Look again, and you will see what you missed, among the many prompts and steerages to speak to or become a volunteer if you have an issue to resolve.
Isn't that cute?Contributions are made by a large number of volunteers at their own discretion. Edits are neither the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff and edits will not generally be made in response to an email request
You missed it again, I bet. Wikipedia is a multi million dollar corporation. They know what they are doing. This is not accidental.
That one word, "generally", is how they get around the fact they can't actually say to people they will never make an edit in response to an email. Why? For one, they have to make certain edits to Wikipedia to meet their legal obligations.
If someone has broken the law and for example added copyright material to Wikipedia, in the opinion of Wikipedia's legal department, then Wikipedia obviously needs to be able to remove it. They prefer to rely on volunteers to find and remove copyrighted material, but volunteers are not agents of Wikipedia. Given Wikipedia is founded on the principle of Free Content (as in, volunteers submit their content for free, it is copyrighted in name only, commercially worthless), sometimes Wikipedia cannot find a single volunteer that agrees something is copyrighted, so that is a scenario where Wikipedia needs to edit Wikipedia.
For two, as a first resort anyway, what's the usual way a lawyer requests a website to alter its content or face legal action? Email, obviously.
If you are still not convinced that dealing with volunteers is neither necessary, desirable or effective, good luck, but don't say you weren't warned. Wikipedia has blocked thousands of people who made mistakes in trying to fix an issue. The real warning sign for you if your issue is serious enough to sue over, or anywhere close to it, is that Wikipedia has a specific policy to block people who are suing Wikipedia. This also applies to anyone simply saying they intend to sue if an issue cannot be resolved. Under those terms, you really would be an idiot not to bypass this step in their "dispute resolution" since it is designed not to avoid or prevent legal action, but replace it.
So, you are going to sue Wikipedia and you have consulted a lawyer. If they tell you Wikipedia has not infringed your rights, then stop there. As above, it sucks, but it really is the wisest choice.
If they think you have a case, awesome. As you may or may not be aware, Wikipedia is protected by a legal doctrine known as Section 230. This significance of this to people who intend to sue Wikipedia is often misunderstood or overblown. It is not uncommon for Wikipedia volunteers, through fear, if not just ignorance, to suggest this offers blanket immunity to Wikipedia. It doesn't. This is a lie. Do not assume that just because a volunteer is a volunteer, their devotion (more likely addiction) to Wikipedia means they wouldn't knowingly lie to try and prevent someone from harming Wikipedia.
You may have heard of a forum called Wikipediocracy, which the media wrongly suggests is for people who are unhappy with Wikipedia and are seeking help. You will not get it there. Especially not if you are minded to take legal action.
A disturbingly high proportion of posters there are devotees of Wikipedia, and it is disturbingly common to see them using that forum to lie to people and suggest that legal action against Wikipedia is undesirable and indeed entirely ineffective. I have written this post to debunk their claim that I am delusional or lack the expertise to give this advice.
Needless to say, to quote the great Vinnie Jones in Snatch....
In other words, it is unlikely in the extreme that Wikipediocracy will be able to present a convincing counter-argument.Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with you. And the fact that you've got "Replica" written down the side of your guns...And the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point five O".... Written on the side of mine.... Should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now... Fuck off!
If they don't simply suddenly go all quiet now I have called them on their bullshit, you can expect them to offer only insults and derision, for sure. And when you see it, remember that I said that forum has a disturbingly high number of Wikipedia's fans, defenders and apologists among their ranks. What you see there, the derisive and dismissive way they treat people who have grounds to be upset by Wikipedia, is what you can expect if you make the mistake of engaging with the volunteers.
Section 230 allows Wikipedia to be classed as a service provider not a publisher. Their service being to allow volunteers to publish content. When they (volunteers) publish content, or restore a harmful revision, they (volunteers) become immediately liable. If they are identifiable, you can sue them directly. Since Wikipedia volunteers are allowed by Wikipedia to edit pseudonymously, it is often just easier to take action against Wikipedia, if only to obtain this information. Wikipedia has a nasty habit of being extremely reluctant to provide this information, so unless the illegality is blindingly obvious, don't bother. It sucks, etc.
There is of course nothing to stop you hiring a private investigator to track down editors who Wikipedia are unwilling to identify, so you can serve them with legal papers. You might be surprised how easy it is to identify volunteers who otherwise think this choice of a random user name has protected their identity. Often they have identified themselves early on, and not been diligent enough in hiding it later. Or they do certain things which require their real name, and assume these are hard to find. Often just patterns of editing and interests, even casual conversations, can reveal who they are. Hire an expert in Wikipedia to work with the PI, and prepare to be amazed.
It tells you a lot about Wikipedia that it isn't actually as common as you might think for volunteers who use Wikipedia as a weapon to seek to hide who they are. Many are open about who they are, confident that their targets won't have the funds or the balls to sue them. So why not sue them?
Suing volunteers is all well and good, assuming they have any money, but why should Wikipedia get off Scot free? You do have the right to hold them accountable as well, and you can exercise this right even though Section 230 exists. All you have to do, is follow a defined procedure. The procedure exists because Section 230 allows Wikipedia to defer liability for content published by volunteers until they become aware of an issue.
So all you have to do to make them liable as a corporation that has allegedly harmed you by infringing your legal rights, is properly notify them.
It is as easy as that.
It is all documented here....
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/
You will note, all that is, is the contact page for the owners of Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia. At the bottom is the Legal section. There is specific copyright advice, and then....
Note that it does not give you any indication as to how to format your complaint. Remember, this is by design. They don't want to give you the impression this is a facility or service. It is a mere legal necessity. Realising how unusual it is these days to provide a physical address, should tip you off.Please send all other legal questions or requests to:
Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
330 North Brand Boulevard
Glendale, California 91203-2336
legal@wikimedia.org
But we can take inspiration from Wikipedia for the format. Remember their Contact Us page? After two more clicks ( "Article subjects - > further information) and then scrolling aallllll the way down the bottom to entry number sixteen, you get to "I would like to sue you for lying about me in your article. How do I proceed?". It should be obvious simply from how they bury this rather important issue to show you how little they care about your legal rights. And as anyone knows, surely, it is hardly uncommon for Wikipedia to be publishing lies about someone.
Unsurprisingly, even here they rather cheekily admit that if you use this email address, your complaint will first go to a volunteer. So obviously, don't do that. Who in their right mind lets an unpaid volunteer review a complaint of this nature before (hopefully) handing it to the person who is actually paid to do exactly the same thing as a representative of Wikipedia, and then act on it. If you feel insulted by the implication that you would send an email to Wikipedia that claims Wikipedia is lying about you, but in fact, it is you who is lying, you should be. This is Wikipedia showing their arrogant presumption they are not at fault.
To explain why they do this, it is quite common for Wikipedia to print a lie and then fall back on the fact that it is not they who originated the lie, they are merely reproducing it from a source. Since you have presumably already done as I advised and engaged a lawyer and a Wikipedia expert, there is hopefully no need for you to have your time wasted and be patronized in this fashion, having your complaint pre-approved by a volunteer, when your lawyer should already know where the lie originated, and advised you accordingly.
If the source is a mere local newspaper report and the lie is a really damaging one, then you will not be surprised to learn that even in this scenario, Wikipedia has some liability for effectively putting that lie through a megaphone. Wikipedia has policies that should prevent volunteers from causing harm in this fashion, but we all know how that goes. Pay zero, get zeros.
Wikipedia may very well have very efficient and experienced volunteers who are very effective in this pre-approval role and choose to do it out of a great sense of moral responsibility. Then again, they may have chosen that day to go for a hike. They might even be part of a criminal organization extorting victims of Wikipedia after first inserting lies about them in Wikipedia, and their otherwise efficient and effective contributions may be their cover. Think that could never happen? Are you sure? What do you really know about Wikipedia, after all? You didn't know Jimmy Wales is routinely ignored. You didn't know volunteers can tell each other to fuck off.
So yes. Ignore the email address, but use the advice....such as it is.
It is important to remember that suing Wikipedia doesn't need to be about winning in a court. In all likelihood, If your lawyer is any good, then Wikipedia will make the necessary changes, rather than refuse and invite you to file your threatened action. As long as they are effective changes that permanently remove the offending content (consult your Wikipedia expert) you honestly might as well be happy with that.If you have a genuine legal concern, tell us about it by emailing [ignore this, use the one linked above] with "Legal concern" in the subject line, and giving the exact URL of the article, and what you think is wrong.
If Wikipedia refuses, by all means, trust your lawyer and take it to court. It would be unusual, because Wikipedia has very expensive lawyers precisely because it is not, as many claim, impossible or incredibly difficult to use the law against Wikipedia. They earn their massive fees by knowing just how vulnerable Wikipedia is to valid claims, and thus when to advise not refusing a request, or if refused in error, not settle a case before it can become the subject of a public trial generating negative headlines for Wikipedia. The existence of a settlement is public record, but details often aren't. A trial is open season.
You should definitely consider telling your story to the media. There is already a lot of media coverage of routine examples of Wikipedia having to admit their model is ineffective and making official edits as a result of legal action. More can only help lawmakers be persuaded that Wikipedia needs to be regulated so that they more effectively prevent harmful edits in the first place.
The law doesn't and never has said service providers should discharge their Section 230 responsibilities mainly through the use of volunteers. It is Wikipedia's conscious choice to put your interests in their hands if you are daft enough to not see the inherent stupidity in it.
Any successful legal threat will of course enrage the volunteers, so always be prepared for them to try and take their revenge. And they can be quite creative. But to let this affect your decision whether to sue Wikipedia, would be to cave in to bullying. This is also one of the very good reasons why I advise you not to engage with volunteers in any way. If you do this, there is a good chance the volunteers never even realise that you have succeeded in using the law to do an end run around them. If there is no media coverage, then you can be sure (and possibly take further action) if it does come out, it was because Wikipedia didn't ensure their attempt to reduce harm didn't result in more harm.
