Question submitted to the European Parliament commission

[tarantino]

This question was recently submitted by European Parliament member Virginie Joron (T-H-L).

Question for written answer E-004362/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Virginie Joron (ID)
Subject: No right of reply and consent on Wikipedia
The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, earned around USD 150 million in 20211
according to its site in English (USD 91 million according to its site in French in 2017) and does not
pay taxes. In addition, George Soros donated USD 2 million in 2018.
Since 2007, it has managed to set aside an excess amounting to almost one-third of its annual
resources and its assets are estimated at almost USD 200 million.
In 2020, its CEO Katherine Maher was earning a gross monthly salary of over USD 30 000.
In 2019, Wikipedia’s founder called for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to be banned from Twitter2.
Wikipedia decides how the data of European citizens is to be processed and used for financial,
political and other purposes. It publishes and manages pages of information on individuals, generally
without seeking their consent.
In the light of the above:
1. Is Wikipedia required under EU law to give European citizens a right of reply to be published on
the pages relating to them?
2. Can it also be required under EU law to delete a particular page relating to a European citizen?
3. Are European citizens entitled under EU law to require Wikipedia to reveal the identity of those
responsible for processing and publishing their data (Article 14, paragraph 1, point (a) GDPR)?

I'm not sure what George Soros has to do with it. Her questions seem okay, but the preamble distracts from them. Her frwiki bio makes her sound pretty controversial and many sources describe her as far-right.

edited to add link

[Midsize Jake]

I'm not sure what George Soros has to do with it...

I think that's just to make the WMF seem "extra Jewy."

I'm afraid we're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that at this point, and for the foreseeable future, any legislative initiatives directed at Wikipedia (and similar sites) will probably come from the political right — maybe even the far right. They just have much more to lose than people on the left, and that's putting aside the question of whether or not they tend to have more skeletons in their personal closets in general. Or, for that matter, the question of how much more (or less) coverage they get when their skeletons are exposed via the media, which is traditionally what puts them into "damage-control mode," leading them to espouse things like "right of reply" and governmentally-imposed opt-out policies for websites (although these days they seem to be happy just yelling "fake news" whenever a problem pops up.)

Still, just because you're on the right doesn't mean you're always wrong, as they say. Efforts like this should be celebrated and supported, whoever they come from. The fact that they're coming 12 years later than we originally predicted... well, that's just the "wheels of government" for you, I guess.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm not sure what George Soros has to do with it...

I think that's just to make the WMF seem "extra Jewy."

I'm afraid we're just going to have to come to terms with the fact that at this point, and for the foreseeable future, any legislative initiatives directed at Wikipedia (and similar sites) will probably come from the political right — maybe even the far right. They just have much more to lose than people on the left, and that's putting aside the question of whether or not they tend to have more skeletons in their personal closets in general. Or, for that matter, the question of how much more (or less) coverage they get when their skeletons are exposed via the media, which is traditionally what puts them into "damage-control mode," leading them to espouse things like "right of reply" and governmentally-imposed opt-out policies for websites (although these days they seem to be happy just yelling "fake news" whenever a problem pops up.)

Still, just because you're on the right doesn't mean you're always wrong, as they say. Efforts like this should be celebrated and supported, whoever they come from. The fact that they're coming 12 years later than we originally predicted... well, that's just the "wheels of government" for you, I guess.

Free speech! Free speech! Unless it's about me and I don't like it, in which case I reserve the right to have it removed! Free speech!

[Poetlister]

Yes, in the mythology of the Far Right George Soros has superseded Lord Rothschild as Chairman of the Learned Elders of Zion, presumably because he's richer.

[Bezdomni]

This question was recently submitted by European Parliament member Virginie Joron (T-H-L).

Reading her fr.wp entry, Looks like she's an insurance saleswoman in Alsace originally from Fréjus (serious National Front territory) and has been "blacklisté" (from observing foreign elections) by the European Parliament for taking positions sympathetic to the party's Russian and Kazakhstani financiers.

(Reading Le Point, I see that blacklister is now a verb in French. what's next? poëtlister? ) This reminds me to be careful using words like "lynchage" regularly used in mainstream media, lest it should offend the Wikerati... )

It looks like some see Soros' role in causing the pound to crash years back as being similar to the role of Bontoux (formerly of Rothschild) in the ruin of wealthy Catholic industrialists in the 1882 Union générale (T-H-L) crash?

This was the first “big puff” in contemporary financial history.

(That entry is a good example of a translation that could stand some review.)

ed: fixed link to entry name that violates the en.wp MOS

[Midsize Jake]

It looks like some see Soros' role in causing the pound to crash years back as being similar to the role of Bontoux (formerly of Rothschild) in the ruin of wealthy Catholic industrialists in the 1882 Union Générale (T-H-L) crash?

Bah. It's true that the speculative currency-trading activities pursued by Soros in the past (and maybe even the present) have been, at best, "morally dubious," and at worst, downright harmful. I could go on about how the various activities of right-wing billionaires tend to be much worse, but the real point is that the relatively few harmful currency manipulations he's engineered are just an excuse for right-wingers to demonize him. Their real objection is that he donates money to liberal causes and, especially, liberal politicians.

It's shouldn't even be necessary to point that out, it's so obvious... Indeed, as I type this, I'm wondering, "why am I posting this? It's so obvious and so well-accepted as fact, people will think I'm insulting their intelligence," which is the very thing I'm most likely to get on other people's cases about. So, maybe there's something wrong with me, in which case I apologize to anyone who is offended.

To the extent that this is actually on-topic, I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia were more right-leaning and funded by people like the Kochs and the Mercers, would left-leaning politicians in Europe and North America consider calling for an opt-out policy? I'm not so sure they would, though I suppose it would depend on how bad things ended up getting.

I also remember the "100 Senators Project," which a few of our members participated in as a kind of experiment to see if there was any real interest within the U.S. Senate in Wikipedia-averse privacy legislation, using each Senator's own BLP article as an example of the sort of things people will use Wikipedia to do. It turns out there wasn't much interest, though that was back in 2012-2013, as I recall. It's quite possible that most US Congress-persons didn't know what Wikipedia even was back then, given their well-documented ignorance of nearly all things technological.

Something like that might produce different results today, but at the same time, it would probably be harder now to find recent edits that are/were potentially harmful enough to get US Senators (or any US politicians) sufficiently worked up over it. I might suggest a somewhat different approach for future projects, like finding out what big corporations have been funding their campaigns and pointing out all the WP "vandalism" carried out on their articles.

[Poetlister]

The GDPR issue is a more serious one. I expect that some of what goes on in Wikiworld violates GDPR. The WMF itself is beyond the reach of European courts, but there are Checkusers in Europe who might be liable, and maybe WMUK, WMDE and other such groups could also be accountable.

[Anroth]

The answer to your points is:

Yes quite a bit of what volunteers do falls foul of GDPR when it comes to PID.
Checkusers in the EU are liable and easily reachable. Checkusers outside the EU are equally liable but logistically unreachable.
WMDE and WMUK etc are almost certainly not sanctionable as groups/orgs except where individual members hold advanced permissions. 'Almost' - if the group has indicated it guides/controls It's members actions, there is an argument (and it's been made successfully before in different circumstances) that it has responsibility for what it's member do. WMUK might be vulnerable to this sort of argument as they testified as a group before a parliamentary committee along those lines.

But it wouldn't be worth the time or effort. Much more efficient to go after individual checkusers or others with access to private data.

The use and sharing of checkuser data on the CU mailing list is an absolute GDPR violation to start with....

[Poetlister]

Checkusers in the EU are liable and easily reachable.

Only if they can be identified. WMF requires checkusers to prove that they are over 18 so they must identify themselves, but I believe that the WMF does not retain records. Even if it does, would it divulge information to a European court?

[Anroth]

Yep. Already has before. Essentially it's defense against being sued directly by state bodies is that users are responsible. In order for that to hold up legally they have to hand over any identifiable information when a legally binding request comes in against that user or risk being held directly at fault.

This would mean user records, ip-logins, Emails associated with accounts etc. From there its trivial to identify someone when you start poking the ISPs.

Of course telling an EU data commissioner you have given access to PID to someone whose identity you do not currently know would be another world of problems

The only reason the WMF has got away with it so far is no one has bothered to complain and 99% of data commisioners are reactive not pro active. They have limited personal and time and so can only respond, and rely on their judgements to provide future guidance.

[thekohser]

I also remember the "100 Senators Project," which a few of our members participated in as a kind of experiment to see if there was any real interest within the U.S. Senate in Wikipedia-averse privacy legislation, using each Senator's own BLP article as an example of the sort of things people will use Wikipedia to do. It turns out there wasn't much interest, though that was back in 2012-2013, as I recall. It's quite possible that most US Congress-persons didn't know what Wikipedia even was back then, given their well-documented ignorance of nearly all things technological.

FYI, if you're interested in learning more about this project:
https://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study