Waibel v Wikimedia

[Dysklyver]

https://thewikicabal.com/2019/01/20/waibel-v-wikimedia/

German professor wins 25,000 euros plus legal costs from Wikimedia Foundation, after successfully arguing in a German court that the Wikipedia article about him was libelous.

German court ruled:

The WMF is legally responsible for any content on Wikipedia that has been reported to them.
The WMF was legally under the jurisdiction of the German court because they have German language content, despite no physical presence in Germany.
An articles revision history counts as published information in the same way as actual articles.
Content on Wikipedia can be libelous even if taken from media/news sources.

[Kumioko]

Wow I am glad to hear this! I hope this is just the start of a crippling series of legal cases.

[Poetlister]

https://thewikicabal.com/2019/01/20/waibel-v-wikimedia/

German professor wins 25,000 euros plus legal costs from Wikimedia Foundation, after successfully arguing in a German court that the Wikipedia article about him was libelous.

German court ruled:

The WMF is legally responsible for any content on Wikipedia that has been reported to them.
The WMF was legally under the jurisdiction of the German court because they have German language content, despite no physical presence in Germany.
An articles revision history counts as published information in the same way as actual articles.
Content on Wikipedia can be libelous even if taken from media/news sources.

What if the WMF decide to ignore the ruling? Could it be enforced against Wikimedia Deutschland or individuals in Germany? And can the court really claim jurisdiction "because they have German language content"? Do the German courts have jurisdiction in Switzerland for example?

[Dysklyver]

What if the WMF decide to ignore the ruling? Could it be enforced against Wikimedia Deutschland or individuals in Germany? And can the court really claim jurisdiction "because they have German language content"? Do the German courts have jurisdiction in Switzerland for example?

The WMF appears to have complied with the ruling, admittedly only after the second judgment, so it is unclear what enforcement actions could have been taken.

Certainly as far as copyright and libel on the internet are concerned, the German courts have international jurisdiction. Any site available in Germany and hosting German language content tangentially related to Germans or Germany is deemed within their jurisdiction nowadays. This would include Switzerland.

[Beeblebrox]

What if the WMF decide to ignore the ruling? Could it be enforced against Wikimedia Deutschland or individuals in Germany? And can the court really claim jurisdiction "because they have German language content"? Do the German courts have jurisdiction in Switzerland for example?

The WMF appears to have complied with the ruling, admittedly only after the second judgment, so it is unclear what enforcement actions could have been taken.

Certainly as far as copyright and libel on the internet are concerned, the German courts have international jurisdiction. Any site available in Germany and hosting German language content tangentially related to Germans or Germany is deemed within their jurisdiction nowadays. This would include Switzerland.

This sounds like a serious "slippery slope" decision that could have ramifications way beyond Wikipedia. North Korea could claim the article on Kim Jung Un is libelous and that they have jurisdiction over the Korean WP because they speak Korean and it's about one of their people.

[Dysklyver]

This sounds like a serious "slippery slope" decision that could have ramifications way beyond Wikipedia. North Korea could claim the article on Kim Jung Un is libelous and that they have jurisdiction over the Korean WP because they speak Korean and it's about one of their people.

Sort of, but not exactly, as despotic fiefdoms generally aren't part of the international legal framework. But is does become a game of which countries have the power to force the WMF to do something and which countries don't. I mean right now we have:

Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes

[Kumioko]

What if the WMF decide to ignore the ruling? Could it be enforced against Wikimedia Deutschland or individuals in Germany? And can the court really claim jurisdiction "because they have German language content"? Do the German courts have jurisdiction in Switzerland for example?

The WMF appears to have complied with the ruling, admittedly only after the second judgment, so it is unclear what enforcement actions could have been taken.

Certainly as far as copyright and libel on the internet are concerned, the German courts have international jurisdiction. Any site available in Germany and hosting German language content tangentially related to Germans or Germany is deemed within their jurisdiction nowadays. This would include Switzerland.

This sounds like a serious "slippery slope" decision that could have ramifications way beyond Wikipedia. North Korea could claim the article on Kim Jung Un is libelous and that they have jurisdiction over the Korean WP because they speak Korean and it's about one of their people.

Honestly, good, they have it coming. I bet the guy who had the monkey selfie stolen from him by the WMF is laughing.

[Vigilant]

What if the WMF decide to ignore the ruling? Could it be enforced against Wikimedia Deutschland or individuals in Germany? And can the court really claim jurisdiction "because they have German language content"? Do the German courts have jurisdiction in Switzerland for example?

The WMF appears to have complied with the ruling, admittedly only after the second judgment, so it is unclear what enforcement actions could have been taken.

Certainly as far as copyright and libel on the internet are concerned, the German courts have international jurisdiction. Any site available in Germany and hosting German language content tangentially related to Germans or Germany is deemed within their jurisdiction nowadays. This would include Switzerland.

This sounds like a serious "slippery slope" decision that could have ramifications way beyond Wikipedia. North Korea could claim the article on Kim Jung Un is libelous and that they have jurisdiction over the Korean WP because they speak Korean and it's about one of their people.

Makes me want to setup a German subsidiary to contact Germans with biographies and offer to sue on their behalf for a contingency fee.

[collect]

https://thewikicabal.com/2019/01/20/waibel-v-wikimedia/

German professor wins 25,000 euros plus legal costs from Wikimedia Foundation, after successfully arguing in a German court that the Wikipedia article about him was libelous.

German court ruled:

The WMF is legally responsible for any content on Wikipedia that has been reported to them.
The WMF was legally under the jurisdiction of the German court because they have German language content, despite no physical presence in Germany.
An articles revision history counts as published information in the same way as actual articles.
Content on Wikipedia can be libelous even if taken from media/news sources.

Absolutely predictable. Wikipedia would have to block all German access to avoid such results.

[Kumioko]

https://thewikicabal.com/2019/01/20/waibel-v-wikimedia/

German professor wins 25,000 euros plus legal costs from Wikimedia Foundation, after successfully arguing in a German court that the Wikipedia article about him was libelous.

German court ruled:

The WMF is legally responsible for any content on Wikipedia that has been reported to them.
The WMF was legally under the jurisdiction of the German court because they have German language content, despite no physical presence in Germany.
An articles revision history counts as published information in the same way as actual articles.
Content on Wikipedia can be libelous even if taken from media/news sources.

Absolutely predictable. Wikipedia would have to block all German access to avoid such results.

I hope they do!

[Poetlister]

Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes

Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?

[Dysklyver]

Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes

Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?

Uruguay certainly could try, because Wikipedia is available in their country. However as they are a small and insignificant backwater nation, I think the WMF could safely ignore them.

[tarantino]

The law firm that represented professor Waibel posted about this last October.

Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia

In its landmark ruling of 28 August 2018, which has become non-appealable, the Berlin Regional Court ruled that the Wikimedia Foundation, as an indirect infringer, is liable for the unlawful infringement of personality rights. To support factual claims, it is not sufficient for a Wikipedia entry to merely refer to television programmes or press articles in which the claims were first made or further disseminated. The decisive factor for the classification of a source as reliable is not the user guidelines of Wikipedia – according to the Berlin Regional Court in the oral hearing – but the rules established by the courts, according to which only reports from privileged sources, such as communications from authorities or recognized press agencies, can serve as evidence of an assertion. In particular, if the person concerned has denied an allegation, it may no longer be presented as an established fact in Wikipedia. The fact that the Wikimedia Foundation, as the operator of the platform, does not create the content itself and therefore cannot determine whether the authors have fulfilled their duty of care in their research is – according to the Berlin Regional Court – at their expense due to the structure of a free encyclopedia chosen by them. As soon as the Wikimedia Foundation becomes aware of a violation of personal rights, it is obliged as a host provider to prevent such violations in the future.

Waibel is a giant in the field of speech recognition and machine translation. As far as I can tell, his enwiki bio, Alex_Waibel (T-H-L), never contained allegations of ties with the NSA.

[Johnny Au]

Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes

Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?

The Finns would like a word.

Swedish is spoken by a large number of Finns.

To be fair, for much of Finland's history, it was a part of Sweden.

[Poetlister]

The Finns would like a word.

Swedish is spoken by a large number of Finns.

To be fair, for much of Finland's history, it was a part of Sweden.

OK, we'll let the Finnish courts have jurisdiction over the Swedish WP.

[Kumioko]

The law firm that represented professor Waibel posted about this last October.

Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia

In its landmark ruling of 28 August 2018, which has become non-appealable, the Berlin Regional Court ruled that the Wikimedia Foundation, as an indirect infringer, is liable for the unlawful infringement of personality rights. To support factual claims, it is not sufficient for a Wikipedia entry to merely refer to television programmes or press articles in which the claims were first made or further disseminated. The decisive factor for the classification of a source as reliable is not the user guidelines of Wikipedia – according to the Berlin Regional Court in the oral hearing – but the rules established by the courts, according to which only reports from privileged sources, such as communications from authorities or recognized press agencies, can serve as evidence of an assertion. In particular, if the person concerned has denied an allegation, it may no longer be presented as an established fact in Wikipedia. The fact that the Wikimedia Foundation, as the operator of the platform, does not create the content itself and therefore cannot determine whether the authors have fulfilled their duty of care in their research is – according to the Berlin Regional Court – at their expense due to the structure of a free encyclopedia chosen by them. As soon as the Wikimedia Foundation becomes aware of a violation of personal rights, it is obliged as a host provider to prevent such violations in the future.

Waibel is a giant in the field of speech recognition and machine translation. As far as I can tell, his enwiki bio, Alex_Waibel (T-H-L), never contained allegations of ties with the NSA.

The way this is written I can very easily see this being used in other lawsuits in the future and potentially even some that have been done in the past.

What I also expect to see along with this is suing the editors of a page. It would be interesting to see how the WMF reacts if a bunch of people started suing them and the editors (effectively forcing their identities to come out). I wonder if they would throw the editors to the wolves or if they would defend them in court. My gut tells me they would defend the admins and functionaries and largely hang the editors out to dry. I know there have been cases in the past where the WMF has defended editors, but if it happens a lot they might not be able to afford them all.

[Poetlister]

Quite likely many of the editors would be unidentifiable, especially the IPs and people who haven't edited lately. Also, they could be anywhere in the world, making suing them all pretty tricky.