Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-11/In the media

Discuss this story

Why is it news that Jimbo said this about Snowden now? As I recall he said pretty much the same thing in his Wikimedia keynote in Hong Kong, at which there was the usual media presence. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German court judgment

As I understand the German court judgment it says the Foundation will have to pay a fine (Ordungsgeld) of €250,000 each time the statement in question is reintroduced into the article (which, by the way, was only semi-protected last time I looked). Andreas JN 466 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One source says the Foundation was held to be liable; another says it was not. Which is it? Powers ^T 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, as I read the German text of the judgment, linked above, each time the material reappears, the Foundation is liable for a fine. It says,

Auf die Berufung der Beklagten wird das Urteil des Landgerichts Stuttgart vom 26.03.2013 (Az. 17 O 814/11) teilweise abgeändert und in Ziff. 1 seines Tenors wie folgt neu gefasst: Die Beklagte wird verurteilt, es bei Meidung eines für jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung fälligen Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000,00 EUR, ersatzweise Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, oder Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, im Wiederholungsfall Ordnungshaft bis zu zwei Jahren, zu unterlassen, wörtlich oder sinngemäß zu verbreiten: a) Nachdem der Sitz des Senders (des Klägers) nach W. verlegt worden war, ging auch bei der Medienaufsicht in Ö. eine Beschwerde ein, dass H. in einem Beratungsgespräch Sex mit Kindern verharmlost habe; b) Zudem gab es Beschwerden, er habe in einer Sendung den Hitlergruß gezeigt;

The German media have stated that once a complaint has been received, Wikimedia has to check the content and remove it if the complaint has merit. If they don't remove defamatory material in response to a justified complaint, they're liable. See e.g. Heise, or for an English summary to the same effect, PCWorld. Another important point was that Wikipedia will not be treated as an online press archive. An online press archive may host outdated articles implying guilt where later none was found to exist. Wikipedia does not have that privilege, as its articles have a significantly greater reach than those hidden in a press archive; in other words, Wikipedia articles have to be up to date. (I am not a lawyer.) Andreas JN 466 22:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disbelieve you, but that doesn't jive with what the WMF Legal blog post says. Powers ^T 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, I think that's a problem with the WMF Legal blog post. It seems to be very selective in what it reports. You could always ask for clarification there. Andreas JN 466 06:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]