Law enforcement asks Wikipedia to remove article content

[HRIP7]

There is a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (link, perma-link) which refers to a recent request by a UK law enforcement agency to remove a page from Wikipedia, so as to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Article history.

Naturally, all (well, most) of Wikipedia cries "Censorship ..." (link)

[lilburne]

Let them eat porridge.

[HRIP7]

Let them eat porridge.

Thread on Jimbo's talk page (link).

[EricBarbour]

The news media makes its living by being sensationalist. A reference work makes its living by being reliable. We have set ourselves apart from the news media. Waiting for the dust to settle before publishing is not being the "good guy"; it is fulfilling our mission, being a reliable reference work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Too late, Fred. How do you like your Magic Project now?

[ErrantX]

Smells like bullshit to me. I've never known UK law enforcement to do things like this; most often technology is beyond them

[HRIP7]

Smells like bullshit to me. I've never known UK law enforcement to do things like this; most often technology is beyond them

With Jimbo saying this morning it's been passed on to Legal, I don't think so.

Fred Bauder clearly said it was a polite request, rather than a court order. Going by past performance, this means that WMF Legal will most likely sit on it for a while and then refer it back to the community without action.

[dogbiscuit]

Smells like bullshit to me. I've never known UK law enforcement to do things like this; most often technology is beyond them

With Jimbo saying this morning it's been passed on to Legal, I don't think so.

Fred Bauder clearly said it was a polite request, rather than a court order. Going by past performance, this means that WMF Legal will most likely sit on it for a while and then refer it back to the community without action.

With the information being hosted in America they know they can't get legal enforcement.

However, to me it says two things:

1) The UK authorities now have a grasp of what Wikipedia is about.

2) They are playing a long game which is, try nicely, gather the evidence on responses, and then look to see if something needs doing.

I think that the authorities around the world are starting to come to terms with the implications of the international nature of the Internet and the impact it is having. With the US authorities stomping into the UK to retrieve people that they don't like messing with US issues, there should be a certain enthusiasm for some quid pro quo in international treaties. I think that if Wikipedia doesn't grasp the need to play nicely with other people who have real, actual power, they might just find that someone decides it is time to take their ball away. Mr Assange found that it wasn't quite as easy as saying "Information must be free" when he trod on too many toes, and evidence about WIkipedia being a corrupted organisation is becoming impossible for the authorities to ignore.

What is depressing about WIkipedians is that they continually demonstrate that they don't understand the right things to do, and in this case they are incapable of grasping that again that they are using the "perfect is the enemy of the good" arguments to avoid trying to do the right thing. Being the no. 1 defamation engine on the Internet puts a duty of care on them. That is not to say there are not newspapers that need to consider that the reporting that was here today and gone tomorrow and therefore had limited impact is different from these days of permanent online accessibility.

[ErrantX]

Smells like bullshit to me. I've never known UK law enforcement to do things like this; most often technology is beyond them

With Jimbo saying this morning it's been passed on to Legal, I don't think so.

Fred Bauder clearly said it was a polite request, rather than a court order. Going by past performance, this means that WMF Legal will most likely sit on it for a while and then refer it back to the community without action.

Sadly I can't find this in OTRS, so it's hard to say to what level this request has been made. Bauder specifically says "Police"; given that it is at trial then some police officer has probably just been taken to task by the judge and is trying to rescue the situation.

The other option is that it comes from a CPS legal eagel (who sometimes have email addresses you could mistake for Police email)

If it's a polite request then clearly there is nothing legal can do; and it is up to the community to decide whether to do as asked.

If it's a legal request there still isn't much to do except refer it back to the community - as the UK has little jurisdiction over there.

The grapevine says that the case is a disaster from start to finish; so I suspect this is someone getting chewed out for making a hash of things

[HRIP7]

Final update.

Matter is now resolved - article has not been deleted, is semi-protected. Please read the article talkpage, where discussion is even now taking place as to the best way to present content in line with Wikipedia policies - which are what matter here.

On the "what to do if this happens again" question, the advice given to OTRS volunteers probably wants reviewing. The Foundation is clear that it will only take down content on receipt of a notice from a court of competent jurisdiction (I think the phrase is), so OTRS volunteers should not be deleting articles or starting deletion discussions on the basis of a request of this kind. However, Wikipedia editors are expected to edit in line with policy for one thing, and for another, editors in the country where the trial is taking place may be subject to local laws relating to sub judice, and should be made aware of this. It is therefore reasonable to (for example) hat note the article, or put the English jurisdiction sub judice tempate on the talkpage, or edit the article to remove information sourced to less than impeccable WP:RS, preferably current ones. WMF are clear that it is the community's decision as to what it does in these situations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[powercorrupts]

Final update.

Matter is now resolved - article has not been deleted, is semi-protected. Please read the article talkpage, where discussion is even now taking place as to the best way to present content in line with Wikipedia policies - which are what matter here.

On the "what to do if this happens again" question, the advice given to OTRS volunteers probably wants reviewing. The Foundation is clear that it will only take down content on receipt of a notice from a court of competent jurisdiction (I think the phrase is), so OTRS volunteers should not be deleting articles or starting deletion discussions on the basis of a request of this kind. However, Wikipedia editors are expected to edit in line with policy for one thing, and for another, editors in the country where the trial is taking place may be subject to local laws relating to sub judice, and should be made aware of this. It is therefore reasonable to (for example) hat note the article, or put the English jurisdiction sub judice tempate on the talkpage, or edit the article to remove information sourced to less than impeccable WP:RS, preferably current ones. WMF are clear that it is the community's decision as to what it does in these situations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The only policy that isn't illogical is consensus, and it just doesn't work most of the time.

100 bad men, not true.

[EricBarbour]

Wiki-people are like bronies. Or fraternity nerds. "How dare they tell US what to do??!?"

Absolutely pitiful

It's sad that for all the claims of user-based governance and so forth, and for that matter, being hosted in a country where the UK's law enforcement has no authority, does nothing to prevent Wikipedia from hopping when some UK cop says frog. If the office folks have such a lack of spine, then perhaps they should be removed and replaced with someone more in tune with the community. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what happened to the whole "we are not censored, even when governments don't like it" thingie? Or do we have the backbone of jello?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)