Italian court rules the WMF is a hosting site

[Kumioko]

Recently I had mentioned that if an editor ever got in trouble for an article the WMF would almost certainly treat them like a kite and cut the string.

Today I read the following article in an online blog called Techdirt:
Italian Court Rules The Wikimedia Foundation Is Just A Hosting Provider For Wikipedia's Volunteer-Written Articles https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2018 ... cles.shtml

In a ruling that provides strong protection for Wikipedia's community governance model, the Court once again recognized that the Wikimedia Foundation is a hosting provider, and that the volunteer editors and contributors create and control content on the Wikimedia projects. The Court also made clear that a general warning letter, without additional detail about the online location, unlawfulness, or the harmful nature of the content as recognized by a court, does not impose a removal obligation on a hosting provider like the Wikimedia Foundation.

Moreover:

the Court took notice of Wikipedia's unique model of community-based content creation, and the mechanisms by which someone can suggest edits or additions to project content. It found that Wikipedia has a clear community procedure for content modification, which Mr. Previti should have used to address his concerns. He could have reached out to the volunteer editors, provided reliable sources, and suggested amendments to the article, instead of sending a general warning letter to the Foundation.

Now what this means to me, with my limited legal background is that the individual editor(s) would be liable, not the foundation. In the past, as far as I know, when people sued, they sued the WMF. This could set a precedent that the WMF is not to blame, the individual editors are. So in cases of liable, slander, copyright infringement, etc. the editors of Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia sites could soon find themselves facing litigation for their volunteer activities on the WMF platforms. Some would no doubt argue that the WMF would support them in such cases and personally I seriously doubt they would. Without question, a lot of it would depend on the status of the editor of the site and the circumstances of the case. The WMF would no doubt go to court for an admin or a functionary and likely for a regular editor if they were a WMF employee or held some clout in the community. For a regular editor however? It's extremely unlikely and editors should be very wary of whether they can afford to face a lawsuit for their volunteer participation in the WMF projects. Especially if you live under Italian rule.

[Midsize Jake]

In the past, as far as I know, when people sued, they sued the WMF.

On the contrary, the current interpretation of CDA Section 230 in the US (which this decision essentially mimics) makes it almost pointless to sue the WMF, so in rare cases when someone has sued, they've sued a list of "John Does." I don't recall anyone trying to sue the WMF for specific content on WP. This is why users have always been so freaked out about people being "doxxed" - their only protection is anonymity, along with being presumed to not have any money (and therefore not be a worthwhile lawsuit target).

Sorry to burst the ol' bubble, but this just makes Italy more like the United States, not less. They're still ahead of the curve on most things, though... I mean, they had Berlusconi as their Prime Minister years before Trump was elected.

[AndyTheGrump]

...Some would no doubt argue that the WMF would support them in such cases and personally I seriously doubt they would...

Some wouldn't need to argue about what the WMF 'would' do, having personal experience of what they actually have done.

[Kumioko]

In the past, as far as I know, when people sued, they sued the WMF.

On the contrary, the current interpretation of CDA Section 230 in the US (which this decision essentially mimics) makes it almost pointless to sue the WMF, so in rare cases when someone has sued, they've sued a list of "John Does." I don't recall anyone trying to sue the WMF for specific content on WP. This is why users have always been so freaked out about people being "doxxed" - their only protection is anonymity, along with being presumed to not have any money (and therefore not be a worthwhile lawsuit target).

Sorry to burst the ol' bubble, but this just makes Italy more like the United States, not less. They're still ahead of the curve on most things, though... I mean, they had Berlusconi as their Prime Minister years before Trump was elected.

A few years ago the media industry started suing people who had pirated music. It didn't matter if they had money, they did it to set a precedent and send a message. All it will take is a few wealthy people or companies to sue editors and the WMF will be in deep trouble...so will the community.

[AndyTheGrump]

...
A few years ago the media industry started suing people who had pirated music. It didn't matter if they had money, they did it to set a precedent and send a message. All it will take is a few wealthy people or companies to sue editors and the WMF will be in deep trouble...so will the community.

So why hasn't it already happened?

[Kumioko]

...
A few years ago the media industry started suing people who had pirated music. It didn't matter if they had money, they did it to set a precedent and send a message. All it will take is a few wealthy people or companies to sue editors and the WMF will be in deep trouble...so will the community.

So why hasn't it already happened?

Good question, but just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

[Poetlister]

Obviously, the protection that US law gives to the WMF doesn't apply outside the USA. However, enforcing a foreign judgment against the WMF would be very tricky. The importance of this judgment is thus more symbolic than practical.

[Textnyymi]

Obviously, the protection that US law gives to the WMF doesn't apply outside the USA. However, enforcing a foreign judgment against the WMF would be very tricky. The importance of this judgment is thus more symbolic than practical.

If the Powers That Be really wanted to prevent any problems with data inserted onto a site protected by Section 230, they'd just politely ask Internet providers to blacklist sites hosted onto the WMF servers!