Wikimedia Foundation loses German defamation case

[Mancunium]

OLG Stuttgart: Wikimedia haftet für Verdachtsberichterstattung
Heise Newsticker, 24 November 2013 link

Google-translated from German: link

Summary:

The Wikimedia Foundation has suffered a defeat in the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart. The court ruled that the owner of Wikipedia has an obligation to review its content and to remove defamatory material, especially unproven allegations.

The specific case before the court involved a TV personality accused, in a newspaper report, of making positive remarks about pedophilia. The article included the person's denial of the allegation, and noted the failure of a formal complaint against him.

The court of appeal ruled the person's right to privacy outweighed the public's right to know of any past allegations against him. The lawyer for the WMF argued that plaintiff should have taken action against the newspapers concerned, and not the Foundation.

The court ruled that correct and up-to-date information about living people is expected from an encyclopedia, especially one that is constantly being updated by users. The WMF is therefore liable for damages from the time Wikipedia is first notified of the BLP defamation. Since the Foundation has no proactive auditing requirements for content, it is has a duty to be active only after, and as soon, as it has been notified of an infringement.

In this case the US-based WMF allowed the accusation to remain on WP, and only removed the defamatory material and protected the article after the court's judgement against it. Wikipedia articles are frequently the subject of legal disputes before German courts, but were until recently directed at Wikimedia Germany. Now many plaintiffs focus on the Wikimedia Foundation based in San Francisco.

This presents a problem to the WMF, which is exposed to the laws of the many countries in which it operates. The Stuttgart judgement makes the WMF responsible for Wikipedia's editing community and its content. "It looks as if the relevant passages were removed by community members because they felt it was inappropriate," said Wikimedia spokesperson Matthew Roth to Heise online. The discussion of how to deal with the judgement is not yet complete.

The Appeal Court's judgement: link

The judgement Google-translated from German: link

[Vigilant]

This is very, very interesting.

I predict chaos and pandemonium at the WMF.
I wonder what this does for the local chapters' liability.

[lilburne]

One wonders why they haven't posted a blog entry about it yet!

[Cla68]

I wonder if the judgement covers all language Wikipedias or just the German one? If it only covers the German one, it could be that the WMF will decide to shut it down.

[eppur si muove]

Wot? No champagne-popping smily?

[enwikibadscience]

One wonders why they haven't posted a blog entry about it yet!

[Randy from Boise]

Free legal advice for WMF from a non-lawyer:

What is "fuck you!" in German?


RfB

[Vigilant]

I wonder if the judgement covers all language Wikipedias or just the German one? If it only covers the German one, it could be that the WMF will decide to shut it down.

If wikipedia has a duty to remove unproven allegations, it seems unlikely that having them in non German languages will skirt this ruling.

[EricBarbour]

I wonder if the judgement covers all language Wikipedias or just the German one? If it only covers the German one, it could be that the WMF will decide to shut it down.

If wikipedia has a duty to remove unproven allegations, it seems unlikely that having them in non German languages will skirt this ruling.

You do, of course, realize that such court findings are unenforceable outside Germany, right?

[The Joy]

Free legal advice for WMF from a non-lawyer:

What is "fuck you!" in German?


RfB

fick dich

[Zoloft]

Free legal advice for WMF from a non-lawyer:

What is "fuck you!" in German?


RfB

fick dich

Needs more flavor: Fick dich und das Pferd ritt Sie in auf!

[The Joy]

Free legal advice for WMF from a non-lawyer:

What is "fuck you!" in German?


RfB

fick dich

Needs more flavor: Fick dich und das Pferd ritt Sie in auf!

Ach! Ist FT2 und Coren! Nein! Nein!

Nun müssen wir Polen eindringen und stehlen ihre Würste!

[lilburne]

I wonder if the judgement covers all language Wikipedias or just the German one? If it only covers the German one, it could be that the WMF will decide to shut it down.

If wikipedia has a duty to remove unproven allegations, it seems unlikely that having them in non German languages will skirt this ruling.

It will only affect content that is mainly intended for German's ie that which is in German.

[dogbiscuit]

I wonder if the judgement covers all language Wikipedias or just the German one? If it only covers the German one, it could be that the WMF will decide to shut it down.

If wikipedia has a duty to remove unproven allegations, it seems unlikely that having them in non German languages will skirt this ruling.

It will only affect content that is mainly intended for German's ie that which is in German.

plus possibly foreign language information about a German resident, where it could be shown that there was harm. However, the general principle is applicable in most jurisdictions outside Germany, so one would assume that if it gets sufficient publicity in legal circles, the lawyers will come in for the kill, especially as the WMF have a significant pot of money from which to pay damages.

[Poetlister]

This is very, very interesting.

I predict chaos and pandemonium at the WMF.
I wonder what this does for the local chapters' liability.

If the chapters are legally the WMF's agents, then the WMF is liable for their actions or inactions. If they aren't, they probably aren't responsible (in various meanings of that word). But the UK WMF got its charitable status partly on the basis that it claims some responsibility for Wikipedia content.

[Mancunium]

Further, and more detailed, coverage:

Wikipedia haftet wie ein Host-Provider
Grundsatzurteil zur Wikipedia: Das Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart hat in einer ausführlichen Urteilsbegründung klargestellt, welche rechtlichen Maßstäbe an die Onlineenzyklopädie anzuwenden sind.
Golem, 25 November 2013 link

A fundamental decision for Wikipedia: the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart has clarified, in a detailed verdict, the legal standards to be applied to the online encyclopedia.

Google-translated from German: link

OLG Stuttgart bejaht Haftung von Wikipedia
Mit schwäbischer Gründlichkeit
Legal Tribune, 25 November 2013 link

Google-translated from German: link

In a remarkably long verdict, the Appeals Court of Stuttgart has ruled on Wikipedia's responsibility for crowd-sourced articles. David Ziegelmayer explains why the online encyclopedia is hereafter liable as a host provider, and does not enjoy the privilege of an online archive.

I would appreciate translations more expert than my own, in respect of both the subtleties of the German language and the implications of the German law.

[DanMurphy]

How much is the fine? That seems very important.

[Mancunium]

Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules
PCWorld, 27 November 2013 link

The Wikimedia Foundation is liable for the contents of Wikipedia articles but does not have to fact check the contents before they are published, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ruled, a spokesman said Wednesday.

The appeals court ruled against Wikimedia in a libel case in early October but the detailed verdict was only published recently on the court’s website. In the German legal system it often takes several weeks for a written ruling to be published.

[...] While Wikimedia does not have to check beforehand whether the contents of a Wikipedia article are true, it has a duty to check if somebody complains about the article, the court ruled. If someone complains about statements in an article, Wikimedia has to check them and if necessary remove the passages, the court said.

[...] The Wikipedia article was based on a newspaper article and the court noted that by reproducing it on Wikipedia, the allegations were spread, said court spokesman Stefan Schüler in an email.

[...] The court also did not specify any criteria for sources against which a disputed article has to be checked, Schüler said. This was not covered in the current case because it was undisputed that the factual allegations were false, he said. Wikimedia was ordered to delete the false passages. If it does not comply, a punishment procedure can be brought against the company, Schüler said.

Wikimedia Germany did not respond to a request for comment.

[HRIP7]

Actual judgment

Earlier analysis

I don't see that there was a fine. The Foundation was ordered to pay part (the smaller part) of the costs of the proceeding. However, if the defamatory content were to re-appear in Wikipedia, it would cost the Foundation €250,000. So I guess that article will remain locked.

[Vigilant]

Actual judgment

Earlier analysis

I don't see that there was a fine. The Foundation was ordered to pay part (the smaller part) of the costs of the proceeding. However, if the defamatory content were to re-appear in Wikipedia, it would cost the Foundation €250,000. So I guess that article will remain locked.

I don't see how this can end well for the WMF.

Have a BLP you'd like to get rid of or monetize?
Use a sock to keep putting obvious falsehoods into the article.
Complain to the WMF citing the case.
They either delete the article, lock the article to the version the subject wants or they get bent over in court.

[HRIP7]

I tell a lie. The article is open for editing.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hornauer

[Mancunium]

Actual judgment

Earlier analysis

I don't see that there was a fine. The Foundation was ordered to pay part (the smaller part) of the costs of the proceeding. However, if the defamatory content were to re-appear in Wikipedia, it would cost the Foundation €250,000. So I guess that article will remain locked.

I don't see how this can end well for the WMF.

Have a BLP you'd like to get rid of or monetize?
Use a sock to keep putting obvious falsehoods into the article.
Complain to the WMF citing the case.
They either delete the article, lock the article to the version the subject wants or they get bent over in court.

Vigilant: always with the best ideas.

[HRIP7]

The offending version is still accessible in the page history. However, that is apparently okay, legally (the talk page discussion says it's analogous to an online archive, and it's only when presented as the current, up-to-date version of the biography that the content of that version is considered a breach of the subject's personality rights).

[Vigilant]

The offending version is still accessible in the page history. However, that is apparently okay, legally (the talk page discussion says it's analogous to an online archive, and it's only when presented as the current, up-to-date version of the biography that the content of that version is considered a breach of the subject's personality rights).

AHAHAHHAHHAHA

So a sneaky revert in the middle of the German night followed by a quick complaint to the court!

Be sure to use TOR kiddies.

[thekohser]

...it's only when presented as the current, up-to-date version of the biography that the content of that version is considered a breach of the subject's personality rights).

Yes, this version of a biography is fine to keep in an archive.

[Mancunium]

German court says Wikimedia is liable for article contents after they're published
Engadget, 27 November 2013 link

The Wikimedia Foundation positions Wikipedia as hub for unfettered knowledge, but it's now obligated to police that content in the wake of a newly published German ruling. Stuttgart's Higher Regional Court has determined that the organization is liable for Wikipedia articles. While Wikimedia won't have to screen content, it will have to verify any disputed passages and remove them if they're known to be false. [...]

Wikimedia is Liable for Contents of Wikipedia Articles, German Court Rules
Wikimedia has to delete passages in Wikipedia articles if they turn out to be false, the court said
CIO, 27 November 2013 link

[...] The appeals court ruled against Wikimedia in a libel case in early October but the detailed verdict was only published recently on the court's website. In the German legal system it often takes several weeks for a written ruling to be published. [...] While Wikimedia does not have to check beforehand whether the contents of a Wikipedia article are true, it has a duty to check if somebody complains about the article, the court ruled. If someone complains about statements in an article, Wikimedia has to check them and if necessary remove the passages, the court said. [...]

It's a good thing I kept the dated copies of my emailed complaints to Jimmy Wales at this address: link

[Poetlister]

...it's only when presented as the current, up-to-date version of the biography that the content of that version is considered a breach of the subject's personality rights).

Yes, this version of a biography is fine to keep in an archive.

Evidently, or it would have been oversighted. Alas, the photo is gone.

[The Devil's Advocate]

That whole bio is a hit piece. It only gets away with it on Wikipedia because it is one of many "well-sourced" hit pieces.

[Poetlister]

That whole bio is a hit piece. It only gets away with it on Wikipedia because it is one of many "well-sourced" hit pieces.

This is one of the problems with BLP. It is often not hard to knock up a well-sourced attack on someone by careful choice and trimming of references, and once this is done, it can be tricky to make the article balanced, and impossible to get it deleted.

[Mancunium]

The German judgement is giving hope to non-notable BLP victims, and I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation -- which urges children to go without a midday meal so they can send their lunch money to the online scandal sheet -- is preparing to spend more donors' dollars to defend against the class-action lawsuits that are bound to launched in the near-future.

Wikimedia Foundation ruled liable for Wikipedia content via German court
SlashGear, 27 November 2013 link

The legal debacle started when an unspecified individual hit Wikimedia with a libel lawsuit that alleged a Wikipedia article said he held unsavvory attitudes towards sensitive topics related to children, and that he had on television given the Nazi salute. The article reportedly went on to state that this individual, who owns a German television station, intimidated and brainwashed his workers and held a cultish atmosphere at work. Wikimedia was held liable for the first two claims, with the others coming from a cited newspaper article.

CORRECTION: Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules
CFOworld, 28 October 2013 link

The story, "Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules," posted to the wire Wednesday, incorrectly stated in the ninth paragraph the name of the organization to which standard reporting guidelines apply. The story was corrected on the wire and paragraph nine now reads:

"Wikimedia needs to start checking articles when factual contents are disputed but the court did not give any guidelines about how Wikimedia should do so, Schüler said. However, standard criteria for reporting on suspects in legal cases apply to Wikipedia articles, Schüler said. These standards are generally considered to include the presumption of innocence of a suspect in cases where a verdict has not yet been reached."

Do you remember this, Newyorkbrad?

In March 2011 he was arrested in Las Vegas after he allegedly wrote a cheque for $3,500 (£2,333), for which he did not have the funds.[6]

This fabrication was in a contested BLP from 11 March 2011 to 28 June 2013. I appreciate the fact that you voted to delete, but the victim of the WMF's lying Yellow_journalism (T-H-L) has yet to receive an apology.

[Mancunium]

Our friends in eastern Europe are quite interested in this story.

Wikimedia ще носи отговорност за статиите в Уикипедия
Дзеркало Тижня, 28 November 2013 link

translated from Ukrainian: Court acknowledged Wikimedia Foundation responsible for the content of Wikipedia articles

Суд визнав Фонд Wikimedia відповідальним за зміст статей Вікіпедії
Technews, 28 November 2013 link

translated from Bulgarian: Wikimedia will be responsible for Wikipedia articles

Nemačka: govorna za objavljeni sadržaj
B92, 28 November 2013 link

translated from Croatian: Germany: Wikimedia responsible for published content

Суд Германии признал Фонд Wikimedia ответственным за содержимое Wikipedia-статей
3DNews, 28 November 2013 link

translated from Russian: German court recognizes Wikimedia Foundation responsible for the content of Wikipedia articles

It's just a matter of time until Jimmy Wales, or someone else from the Wikimedia Foundation, ends up in a cage in Moscow, facing some catchall charge like Hooliganism (T-H-L).

[Mancunium]

Eingriff in das Persönlichkeitsrecht
Internet World Business, 28 November 2013 link

summary translated from German:

Invasion of Privacy

The Wikimedia Foundation argued to the Court of Appeal that the editor of the libellous article had cited a local newspaper, and so the plaintiff should have taken action against the press. The judge rejected this argument, because online archives of the media are often no longer available on their current websites, their stories can only be found with a targeted search, and they usually have only a limited range; Wikipedia's articles, however, have a virtually unlimited range. The court also found that Wikipedia articles are regularly updated, and are therefore to be judged according to the same criteria as have been developed for libel and invasion of privacy in the news media.

[Vigilant]

Eingriff in das Persönlichkeitsrecht
Internet World Business, 28 November 2013 link

summary translated from German:

Invasion of Privacy

The Wikimedia Foundation argued to the Court of Appeal that the editor of the libellous article had cited a local newspaper, and so the plaintiff should have taken action against the press. The judge rejected this argument, because online archives of the media are often no longer available on their current websites, their stories can only be found with a targeted search, and they usually have only a limited range; Wikipedia's articles, however, have a virtually unlimited range. The court also found that Wikipedia articles are regularly updated, and are therefore to be judged according to the same criteria as have been developed for libel and invasion of privacy in the news media.

The court also found that Wikipedia articles are regularly updated, and are therefore to be judged according to the same criteria as have been developed for libel and invasion of privacy in the news media.

If that is really the effect of this case, then the WMF is screwed, screwed, screwed.
If I were inside or outside counsel, I'd be telling them to start setting aside funds for litigation.

How long before a plaintiff shows that even after the offending material is removed from the current version that it still exists, probably forever, one mouse click away...

It's hard to overstate how huge the potential liability for WMF just became.
Does en.wp get covered by this?
A bad BLP about a German national on en.wp...is that actionable?

[Poetlister]

A bad BLP about a German national on en.wp...is that actionable?

In the German courts, yes. But will the courts in Florida and California uphold a judgment against American citizens in a foreign court?

[Mancunium]

Sometimes, even the most venerable institutions cross the line just one last time.
And then they're gone, gone, gone.

[Vigilant]

A bad BLP about a German national on en.wp...is that actionable?

In the German courts, yes. But will the courts in Florida and California uphold a judgment against American citizens in a foreign court?

The WMF is a non profit corporation.

[Mancunium]

A bad BLP about a German national on en.wp...is that actionable?

In the German courts, yes. But will the courts in Florida and California uphold a judgment against American citizens in a foreign court?

The WMF is a non profit corporation.

Who Can Sue a Nonprofit Board?
Nonprofit Risk Management Center link

One of the myths associated with nonprofit D&O exposures is that there are few sources of claims since nonprofits don't have shareholders. While it is true that the vast majority of lawsuits filed against nonprofit boards are filed by current and former employees (alleging wrongful employment practices), nonprofits serve large and varied constituencies to which their boards owe specific fiduciary duties similar to duties owed by corporate boards. These constituencies are potential plaintiffs in legal actions brought against nonprofit boards. [...] Third parties that have a relationship with the nonprofit may allege harm caused by the nonprofit and/or its directors, officers or employees.

Governance and Accountability
National Center for Nonprofit Boards link

Along with the benefits of being a board member—the opportunity to affect social change, personal and professional growth, camaraderie, and prestige—come duties and responsibilities. Many board members don't realize the extent of their responsibilities, the potential liabilities they assume, or to whom they are accountable. This special report, which grew out of discussions held during a conference on governance and accountability at the National Center on Philanthropy and the Law at the New York University School of Law, addresses three important topics that board members must understand in order to effectively fulfill their duties. To best protect themselves and the interests of their organizations, all board members should be knowledgeable about:
the effectiveness of the IRS Form 990 as a mechanism for disclosure and accountability,
the capacity of government regulators to monitor nonprofit activities, and
standing to sue and its impact on governance.

[Mancunium]

From the Governance and Accountability paper posted in the comment above:

Over the past year, board members of educational trusts, animal rescue organizations, and condo associations, among others across the country, have been sued. ... They were sued by state attorneys general, by other board members, and by private citizens. They were sued as individuals, not just as a board or as an organization. Board members need to know that they can be held liable for their actions in a court of law, and that their liability may be increasing.

Practically speaking, anyone can sue a nonprofit. Individuals frequently sue nonprofit hospitals with grievance claims. In some cases, an individual may ask the state attorney general to investigate a case. The main criterion for individual standing to sue is the plaintiff's perception of the reason for the case. If an organization has done something that resulted in harm to an individual, he or she can sue. Proponents of expanded standing argue that charities exist to meet a demand for goods and services left unfilled because of market failure. They contend that constituents of charities should have a mechanism for holding their service providers accountable for delivery of services and thus have standing to sue. The implication is that boards would govern more carefully and organizations operate more accountably under the threat of lawsuits from dissatisfied constituents. Another group with a vested interest in charitable accountability is donors, who proponents believe should have increased standing, but with restrictions corresponding to the parameters of the gifts.

This indicates that the directors of a nonprofit are liable for its crimes. The Wikimedia Foundation calls its directors "members of the Board of Trustees": link.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and its work, as its ultimate corporate authority. [...] Since 2008, the Board has seats for ten Trustees:
one founder's seat (reserved for Jimmy Wales);
two seats selected by the Wikimedia chapters;
three seats elected directly by the Wikimedia community; and
four seats appointed by the rest of the Board for specific expertise.

The biographical information on the current WMF Trustees makes it clear they all deserve to be sued into destitution. They are individually and collectively liable for the crimes the Foundation has committed against the national laws of China (sedition), France (espionage), Iran (spreading corruption on earth), Pakistan (blasphemy), Russia (promotion of illegal drugs), Saudi Arabia (immorality), Thailand (lèse majesté), the United Kingdom (distribution of child pornography), and many other sovereign states, some of them with the death penalty.

[Cedric]

The biographical information on the current WMF Trustees makes it clear they all deserve to be sued into destitution. They are individually and collectively liable for the crimes the Foundation has committed against the national laws of China (sedition), France (espionage), Iran (spreading corruption on earth), Pakistan (blasphemy), Russia (promotion of illegal drugs), Saudi Arabia (immorality), Thailand (lèse majesté), the United Kingdom (distribution of child pornography), and many other sovereign states, some of them with the death penalty.

Fortunately for the WMF, criminal violations in foreign ("alien") jurisdictions would not trigger application of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO," 18 USC 1961 et seq.) with its rather severe criminal and civil penalties. Less happily for them, violations of state criminal statutes involving "dealing in obscene matter" and providing penalties of one year's imprisonment or more can trigger RICO. Pretty much every American state has laws against exposing minors to pornography, as well as having their own state version of RICO (the "baby RICOs"). This is one area where they have real vulnerability. Section 230 has no application where a federal criminal statute applies (42 USC 230(e)(1)).

[Mancunium]

Fortunately for the WMF, criminal violations in foreign ("alien") jurisdictions would not trigger application of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO," 18 USC 1961 et seq.) with its rather severe criminal and civil penalties. Less happily for them, violations of state criminal statutes involving "dealing in obscene matter" and providing penalties of one year's imprisonment or more can trigger RICO. Pretty much every American state has laws against exposing minors to pornography, as well as having their own state version of RICO (the "baby RICOs"). This is one area where they have real vulnerability. Section 230 has no application where a federal criminal statute applies (42 USC 230(e)(1)).

Unfortunately for the Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, news of their individual and collective liability, for the entire content of the Wikipedias of every language, is spreading fast-- and warrants for their arrests and unpleasant prison cells may await them whenever they travel to, or merely switch planes in, any number of countries. Rome has spoken.

Germania, Wikimedia responsabile del contenuto di Wikipedia
L'enciclopedia è libera, ma non da tutti gli obblighi di un intermediario: deve intervenire se riceve segnalazioni. Così facendo, però, chiunque potrà pretendere di lasciare solo le informazioni che più gli fanno comodo
Punto Informatico, 20 November 2013 link

In Germania Wikipedia responsabile dei contenuti
La Corte d'appello di Stoccarda ha stabilito che l'organizzazione Wikimedia è responsabile tecnica degli articoli sull'enciclopedia per abusi e rimozioni.
Web News, 29 November 2013 link

Gli errori di Wikipedia le informazioni false la rendono una fonte sempre meno attendibile secondo una sentenza in Germania
Assodigitale, 29 November 2013 link

[DanMurphy]

The Wikimedia Foundation says this was a great victory.

In October, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart issued a ruling (in German) affirming that the Wikimedia Foundation is a “service provider” and not a “content provider,” a win for the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation. This decision marks the first time a German appellate court has ruled so clearly on this issue for Wikipedia, and it will have a beneficial impact on future claims brought in German courts. The finding is based on the fact that content on Wikipedia is created and managed by a global community of volunteer editors and contributors, as opposed to the Wikimedia Foundation. This week, the detailed verdict was published on the court’s website. Recent press has misinterpreted the positive impact of this decision, with a number of writers incorrectly summarizing the decision.

Who's right? I have no idea, not having looked into it.

But the headline of that post by Wikimedia's in-house lawyer Michelle Paulson and the German lawyer they retained for the case caught my eye: "In legal victory, German court rules Wikimedia Foundation need not proactively check for illegal or inaccurate content."

This is indeed straight out of Idiocracy: In the bizarro-world they've helped create, it's considered a great and wonderful and enlightened thing not to hold the owners of an encyclopedia accountable for falsehoods and defamation. They were appalled at the thought of proactive accountability.

Would you send your children to be educated by such people?

[Mancunium]

The Wikimedia Foundation says this was a great victory.

In October, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart issued a ruling (in German) affirming that the Wikimedia Foundation is a “service provider” and not a “content provider,” a win for the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation. This decision marks the first time a German appellate court has ruled so clearly on this issue for Wikipedia, and it will have a beneficial impact on future claims brought in German courts. The finding is based on the fact that content on Wikipedia is created and managed by a global community of volunteer editors and contributors, as opposed to the Wikimedia Foundation. This week, the detailed verdict was published on the court’s website. Recent press has misinterpreted the positive impact of this decision, with a number of writers incorrectly summarizing the decision.

Who's right? I have no idea, not having looked into it.

But the headline of that post by Wikimedia's in-house lawyer Michelle Paulson and the German lawyer they retained for the case caught my eye: "In legal victory, German court rules Wikimedia Foundation need not proactively check for illegal or inaccurate content."

This is indeed straight out of Idiocracy: In the bizarro-world they've helped create, it's considered a great and wonderful and enlightened thing not to hold the owners of an encyclopedia accountable for falsehoods and defamation. They were appalled at the thought of proactive accountability.

Would you send your children to be educated by such people?

No. The Wikimedia Foundation has already caused my children pain enough.

And the WMF is whistling in the dark. The headline of its press release should have been, "In legal defeat, German court rules Wikimedia Foundation need not proactively check for illegal or inaccurate content but it is liable for such content from the moment it is informed of the illegality or inaccuracy".

From the WMF press release:

If, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is informed of certain content allegedly in violation of local law, according to the court, that content should be removed to maintain immunity from liability – this is a position consistent with traditional online hosting liability under which Wikipedia has historically operated.

The WMF should explain why scores of publications in several languages have independently reported that the Foundation lost this defamation case. An example, from PCWorld, 27 November 2013: link

While Wikimedia does not have to check beforehand whether the contents of a Wikipedia article are true, it has a duty to check if somebody complains about the article, the court ruled. If someone complains about statements in an article, Wikimedia has to check them and if necessary remove the passages, the court said.

Who ever thought that the Wikimedia Foundation has to proactively review all of the billions of edits in its multilingual empire of ignorance -- to ensure that every single one of them is compliant with universal standards of legality and accuracy -- before they are published, or before there is a complaint?

No one. The Foundation is celebrating its victory over its own Straw_man (T-H-L).

Just how liable is WMF Trustee Jimbo Wales? link

[lilburne]

Who ever thought that the Wikimedia Foundation has to proactively review all of the billions of edits in its multilingual empire of ignorance -- to ensure that every single one of them is compliant with universal standards of legality and accuracy -- before they are published, or before there is a complaint?

No one. The Foundation is celebrating its victory over its own Straw_man (T-H-L).

The WMF are a bunch of whiny cunts.

[NotNormal]

I predict chaos and pandemonium at the WMF.
I wonder what this does for the local chapters' liability.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything happening with the English version of Wikipedia, at least not in the U.S. As long as rip-off-report is allowed to operate how they do, Wikipedia will more than likely remain untouchable. Not sure about UK, Australia, etc.

The WMF are a bunch of whiny cunts.

And yes, they are. This should be the motto of the organization. Anyone who isn't banned willing to add it to their information box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation)?

[Mancunium]

More people who haven't read the WMF press release about the Foundation's great victory:

Wikipedia: Haftet die Plattform für rechtswidrige Artikel der Nutzer?
eRecht24, 4 December 2013 link

Google-translated from German: link

summary:

The Stuttgart Court of Appeal ruled on a case of defamation in a Wikipedia BLP. The Court ruled that the US-based Wikimedia Foundation is liable for criminal libel from the moment it becomes aware of a complaint. It is especially liable because of the fact that it is constantly updated and is viewed approximately 818 million times a month.

The Court ruled that Wikipedia may not rely on the fundamental rights of freedom of press and freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 5 of the Basic Law. The Court stated that only businesses headquartered in the EU may claim these fundamental rights, and they do not protect the Wikimedia Foundation, whose registered office is the USA.

[dogbiscuit]

More people who haven't read the WMF press release about the Foundation's great victory:

Wikipedia: Haftet die Plattform für rechtswidrige Artikel der Nutzer?
eRecht24, 4 December 2013 link

Google-translated from German: link

summary:

The Stuttgart Court of Appeal ruled on a case of defamation in a Wikipedia BLP. The Court ruled that the US-based Wikimedia Foundation is liable for criminal libel from the moment it becomes aware of a complaint. It is especially liable because of the fact that it is constantly updated and is viewed approximately 818 million times a month.

The Court ruled that Wikipedia may not rely on the fundamental rights of freedom of press and freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 5 of the Basic Law. The Court stated that only businesses headquartered in the EU may claim these fundamental rights, and they do not protect the Wikimedia Foundation, whose registered office is the USA.

That last paragraph is very satisfying in the context of s230.

[Mancunium]

Auch Wikipedia muss das Urheberrecht beachten
Main-Netz, 17 December 2013 link

Google-translated from German link

summary:

Even Wikipedia has to respect copyright
Interview with Professor Olaf Sosnitza, who holds the Chair of Civil Law, Commercial Law and Intellectual Property Law at the University of Würzburg.

Wikipedia must obey copyright law. Brief citations are permitted, and must always credit the source. Photos are copyright-protected until 70 years after their owners" deaths. If there is a violation of copyright one may bring an injunction against WP; it will be upheld in the courts, which will order the deletion of the copyright-protected material,

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia haftet für ehrverletzende Einträge
anwalt.de, 8 July 2014 link

Google-translation from German link

Wikipedia liable for defamatory messages

Wikipedia can be taken before German courts under German law for violation of the general right of personality to complete. This was decided in Stuttgart Higher Regional Court.^The judgment was an entry in the online encyclopedia based on one person. The entry relied on a previously expressed in the press suspicion. The court was of the opinion that it was already missing at the minimum level of factual issues for the expressed suspicion. Basically, it is admissible to point in the context of a recent report on the closing of a case and to designate the offenses which were the subject of the proceedings. However, the Wikipedia article contains operations that already date back years. It lacks the contemporary relevance as it is necessary for a legitimate suspicion reporting.

The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to online archives of the press is not applicable on Wikipedia. In an online encyclopedia is so, it not archived Altmeldungen that are explicitly marked as such and clearly recognizable. The operation of the encyclopedia based on the fact that their users could constantly update the existing entries and articles. Searched and found so will a recent biography of a person. The court thus affirmed an unlawful violation of the personal rights of the plaintiff, which is why injunctive relief was given.

(Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, judgment of 02/10/2013, file number 4 U 78/13)

Our Opinion

Lawyer specializing in IT law says Timo rubble to this judgment: "Since Wikipedia so it" lives "that users can post and change, the platform is not to be regarded as a content provider for its own content, but as a host provider for third party content. Wikipedia makes the content as its own. Otherwise, the foreign content would in fact like their own content of the platform operator treated. This distinction is important for the question of liability: With original content of the website operator directly liable as a perpetrator, then it may be necessary also claim damages and the like. afford. But if it is to external content, then a liability as spoilers exist, like this. The liability is then "only" an injunction, in this case the cancellation of the relevant passage. There then exist no proactive inspection duties in the sense that the platform operator would even investigate rights violations and stop them. Wikipedia is thus only responsible of becoming aware of a violation of law, which starts by reporting the injury. "

Timo Schutt
yer specializing in IT law