Waibel v Wikimedia
-
- Cornishman
- Posts: 2337
- kołdry
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
- Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
- Nom de plume: Dysk
- Location: England
Waibel v Wikimedia
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.
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.
Globally banned after 7 years.
-
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
Wow I am glad to hear this! I hope this is just the start of a crippling series of legal cases.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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 wrote: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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Cornishman
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
- Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
- Nom de plume: Dysk
- Location: England
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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.Poetlister wrote: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?
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.
Globally banned after 7 years.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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 wrote: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.Poetlister wrote: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?
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.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
-
- Cornishman
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
- Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
- Nom de plume: Dysk
- Location: England
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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:Beeblebrox wrote: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.
Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes
Globally banned after 7 years.
-
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
Honestly, good, they have it coming. I bet the guy who had the monkey selfie stolen from him by the WMF is laughing.Beeblebrox wrote: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 wrote: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.Poetlister wrote: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?
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.
-
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31849
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
Makes me want to setup a German subsidiary to contact Germans with biographies and offer to sue on their behalf for a contingency fee.Beeblebrox wrote: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 wrote: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.Poetlister wrote: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?
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.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:43 pm
- Wikipedia User: Collect
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
Dysklyver wrote: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.
-
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
I hope they do!collect wrote:Dysklyver wrote: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.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?Dysklyver wrote:Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Cornishman
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
- Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
- Nom de plume: Dysk
- Location: England
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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.Poetlister wrote:Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?Dysklyver wrote:Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes
Globally banned after 7 years.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 4804
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
The law firm that represented professor Waibel posted about this last October.
Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia
Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia
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.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.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
- Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
- Actual Name: Johnny Au
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
The Finns would like a word.Poetlister wrote:Of course, nobody outside Sweden speaks Swedish. But could say Uruguay claim jurisdiction over the Spanish site, or is that confined to Spain?Dysklyver wrote:Turkey: nope
Venezuela: nope
China: nope
Germany: yes
USA: yes
Sweden: yes
Swedish is spoken by a large number of Finns.
To be fair, for much of Finland's history, it was a part of Sweden.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
OK, we'll let the Finnish courts have jurisdiction over the Swedish WP.Johnny Au wrote: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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
-
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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.tarantino wrote:The law firm that represented professor Waibel posted about this last October.
Raue LLP successful against WikipediaWaibel 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.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.
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.
-
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
Re: Waibel v Wikimedia
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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche