Slashdot Mirror
German Wikipedia Threatened w/ Injunction
TheEagleCD writes "Wikipedia.de, the German version of the popular Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is currently closed due to a German court order. A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." As I write this the site is back up, as is the tron entry that caused the whole mess. However it does appear that the entire domain was briefly shut down over one entry.
the german wikipedia (which is under Jimmy's control) was never down, only the site www.wikipedia.de (under control of a german club), which normally redirected to the former, and is still down now. So, everybody who remembers the "real" wikipedia address can still use wikipedia without any problems.
"A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry.""
MCP is trying to delete another program.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.or g%2Fwiki%2FTron_(Hacker)
Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.
It's not like the German wikipedia is taken off the net. It's just the popular domain wikipedia.de that's unavailable. de.wikipedia.org works just fine, and has all the information ready that is being debated.
It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court. I'd bet they'll just reject to even start debating the case. Freedom of press is valued highly _in Germany_, you know.
ALLES WEBBENSURFERS!
Das Wikipagen is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy pissen off der blogbereich, libellen und slanderen mit lawsuitspawnen. Ist nicht fur editten by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen das cotten-pickenen hands in das pockets - relaxen und watchen das flammekrieg.
So what is their actual complaint here? Are they just mad that wikipedia posted easily findable information in an article? Or are they mad that their name is linked to a convicted criminal? Seems like wikipedia is the wrong place to divert that anger.
You can download database dumps and you can find some help with importing into a fresh Mediawiki installation. You can try Wikifilter for converting the dump data into HTML.
So basically, because they want to stop some guy from using the name for a fictional character they're trying to stop Wikipedia from using it to refer to the actual, original person.
W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Can't wait to see someone run this through the Encheferizer
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Just go here and download the database.
But still I don't see why calling Boris Floricic by his name, Boris Floricic, should be a crime! I mean, I've said Boris Floricic three times in this post, and I doubt I will only say Boris Floricic three times (Or four? I mean, Boris Floricic rolls off the tongue! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic!)
So instead of having his family name in an obscure wikipedia entry that no one ever reads its on the frontpage of slashdot now. Way better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Parker and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man both link/redirect to the same page, clearly giving away his secret identity, if the Parkers can put up with it, then it shouldn't be a big deal for Tron/Boris F./Boris Floricic 's family.
No better way to divert attention than to trying to shut down an international site. I'm REALLY sure nobody will know, from now on, who Boris Floricic aka "Tron" is!
Oops, what did I say? *shuts mouth*
From the Wikipedia article:
The order prohibits the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the domain "wikipedia.org".
And how is Wikimedia going to carry that out? Censor the name from going into pages? That would severely hurt their credibility while being ineffective (there are so many ways around computer censors that it's not even funny).
Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well.
In that case it was, as is clearly stated, fictitious. It could have easily misrepresented 'Tron', while Wikipedia is (or strives to be) factual. How can they tell us to stop telling the truth? More importantly, does this mean any old criminal can demand that his name be removed from Wikipedia? Who has the power here - a foreign country that Wikimedia isn't even based in, or Wikimedia itself? Where do freedom of speech/press end and let privacy and the whims of different countries begin to take control?
Sounds a whole lot like the internet control controversy again to me.
Stop saying Boris Floricic!
So you sue someone to stop them from mentioning your name.
That just brings up all kinds of odd questions. Like: Is wikipedia allowed to talk about the fact they got sued? And if they do talk about being sued, are they allowed to mention the names of the people who sued them? Since, you know, it's apparently banned to mention these people's last names, that's why wikipedia's in court in the first place. How does wikipedia report on the court case? Do they have to just say "we have been sued by somebody, we can't tell you who, but their name begins with F"? Are they allowed to publish documents, like court summons and such, from the case but only so long as they black out the names of the plaintiffs with a magic marker?
> Damn, I need my own wiki page.. Promise i wont sue
Here ya go...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What is a racial opinion? What are races anyway? The concept of "human races" has a long and dark history, it has never done any good to anyone, except that some people can claim themselves superior and others inferior. It only serves to de-humanise whole nations or other groups followed by the inevitable extermination campaign. Pretty much every nation, past or present, that has or ever has had lust for power and domination, has used this strategy. Now if you don't mind, Germany does not want to repeat this horrendous mistake by letting demagogues rise. There is a lot of evil hiding inside every population, and it's called indifference. This evil is going strong in Western nations nowadays, and the more important it is that such people need to be stopped in their tracks. And you, Anonymous Coward, wherever you live, just hope your country never needs to get its own Hitler to realize this.
"Alternate versions" of the Holocaust are to the actual Holocaust what Intelligent Design is to Evolution, only infinitely worse.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
"No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even--and I want to make this absolutely clear--even if they do say Boris Floricic."
I looked at the page, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. In fact, I don't understand a word of it -- it might as well be in another language!
I was editing on Wikipedia when the legal notice started to surface on the English Wikipedia entry for this individual, which was quickly deleted by English Wikipedia Administrators. Last I checked, all Wikipedia entries do not include Boris's last name, and though our opinions differ on the matter, most of us refer to Boris as "Boris F---" or something of the like in Discussion and Talk pages. The main dilemma, of course, remains as to whether Germany has jurisdiction over our content. Legally, they do not, as the Wikimedia servers are hosted in Florida. However, there is precedent that any individual involved in writing this article can be immediately detained upon ever setting foot in Germany. I can't remember the details, but an Australian man writing revisionist Nazi theories was arrested for publishing his works elsewhere. We can continue to post up "Floricic," or however it's spelled, on Wikipedia if we wished. However, I think that the Administrators were justified in making the page deletes due to legal threats. Where do we draw the line, though? If Iran ordered us to not write about something, I'd seriously doubt most administrators on Wikipedia would take drastic action. I seriously doubt the U.S. would ever consider extradition (not to mention the public outcry) if an American was shipped away because of an anti-free speech German law. The bottom line is: legally, Wikipedia has no need to listen to Germany. However, what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?
Wow, this post shows that the Germans have really made a lot of progress in modernizing their language! When I took German in high school (many years ago) it seemed like they had a different word for everything...
Calm down, it's just a preliminary injunction. These are relatively easy to get pretty much everywhere, and it doesn't say anything about what the final decision will be.
And for that matter... the whole case is clearly ridiculous, so it will get thrown out quickly enough. There's no need to rave about how "no single country can shut down information on the internet" and how "some Germans still want to rewrite history" - in fact, the last statement seems to be borderline Godwinesque, although I may be misinterpreting it.
So, just relax.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Second of all, on the pages where users vote on whether or not to delete a page, only registered users may have their votes counted. Anonymous users can engage in debate, but not vote, I suppose like Puerto Rico and Guam's delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Third, this is to prevent users from going to their LiveJournal and rounding up hundreds of their online buddies to vote on an Article for Deletion page to keep their no-name garage band or other non-notable things from being deleted. Registered users that vote in AFDs, or Articles for Deletion, have their votes counted based on how many edits are sufficient to tell if they've registered specifically to vote in that AFD or not.
When an anonymous user creates hundreds of registered accounts to vote on a Wikipedia AFD to prevent it from getting deleted, the jargon for this is "sockpuppeting." The jargon for an anonymous user getting hundreds of their friends to vote on an AFD to keep an article they created from getting deleted is called "meatpuppeting."
Fourth, there is no 50% threshold where entries on AFD become deleted. If an article has around 50% deletion votes, the default is to keep the article because it the community is too uncertain. Most administrators I have talked to say it's clear the community has decided a certain way when around 66% vote a certain way, while some have put it around 80%, or, most wisely, judge it on a case-by-case basis.
These are very good mechanisms to help prevent Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by neo-Nazis and beastiality connaisseurs who want to create 500 Wikipedia articles on self-invented terms for man-on-sheep sex positions.
What the heck does this to do with WW2?
It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Because only the UN is above the politics and special-interest pushing and pulling that might cause a domain record to yanked for making someone upset.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What has the "whole WWII thing" to do with this particular Wikipedia problem? Utter lack of freedom of speech? Germany does not discuss its Nazi past and is trying to bury it? Have you ever been to Germany, watched at least some German television or read a German newspaper? We're talking about the same Germany that ranks a lot higher on that world press freedom ranking than almost everyone else, including the US? That constantly discusses its Nazi past? And what do you know about the German legal system and this particular case?
You have no idea what you're talking about. And why is this moderated Insightful? Seriously, moderators, get a clue or refrain from moderating.
There's an easier way, you know. Click the language link to switch to the English version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker)
As it looks now, some Germans still want to rewrite history -- which is a very bad habit to get into.
Well... Its not as if http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/holocaust keeps getting submitted to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_deletion
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
> He also was a convicted of a crime so his name was a matter of public record in germany.
The thing is this: The people's right on privacy is highly protected. This includes their identity. Media is not allowed to disclose the identity of some random guy without his consent. This includes anyone in a trial and also convicted people. The only exception are public figures. And a person will not become a public figure because the media says so or report on him. It does not matter that his name is in the court files.
You will not find any newspaper article about Tron's trail that does not refer to him as Boris F. You will not find his full name in the media.
Now, wikipedia has his full name in the article. They were asked to change this by Tron's parents. They declined, partly by stating that Tron is a public figure, so they are allowed to do this. Obviously the parents disagree.
They ask a judge for a preliminary injunction until this matter is decided upon in court. He grants it as he values the negativ impact off revealing Tron's identity higher as wikipedia's interest in giving the full name.
The injunction orders wikipedia.de to not show the name. The german wikipedia chapter decides to turn of the redirection from wikipedia.de to wikipedia.org. They could have edited the article in question, but did not.
If in the US people's right on privacy is valued less, then be it. I rather like the german version.
The injuction is against wikipedia.de, not any US entity. So spare us your cant.
I've seen some malicious trolls in my day, but you, sir, are the worst. They took down the entirety of de.wikipedia.org for user content containing those words. Do you hate Slashdot so much that you're willing to risk the same fate for it?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Just because Jimbo is a godking over there doesn't mean he makes all the decisions. The Wikimedia Foundation has a board that includes Jimbo.
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
Thanks!
I made one for you too!
Or you can get static HTML dumps here.
The parents of Tron calling for a temporal decree at a german court and having his real name deleted from Wikipedia are being silly. Tron is, by definition, "a person of public interest" (german legal term) and any legally optainable information on him may thus be published.
A temporal decree in german law is exactly that: temporal. A decision by court that needs to be followed until the real court rule is out. No judge in his right mind will prohibit an encyclopedia from publishing details about Tron.
This case does emphasise though that writers to wikipedia are bound by german publishing law and are liable for any damage they cause by deliberately publishing lies or such. Just because the server with german content is outside of germany doesn't mean you'll get away with causing public unrest (Volksverhetzung), denial of the Holocaust ('Auschwitz Lüge') or anything else that is illegal in germany. If the indended audience evidently is in germany the courts won't fall for cheap excuses. Which makes perfect sense.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
[...] wurde dem Verein Wikimedia Deutschland [...] untersagt, von dieser Domain auf die deutschsprachige Ausgabe der freien Enzyklopädie Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) weiterzuleiten.
which translates to roughly the following: sorry, at the moment we are not allowed to redirect you to wikipedia.org ;-)
Except the "defendant" may be your hosting company that will "acquiesce" immediately. A guy tested this a year or so ago, put up several sites with public domain text (hundreds of years old), then sent a complaint claiming he was the copyright owner. Most of the ISPs just shut it down.
Well, I may be wrong here, not being US national and not knowing your laws by heart, and if so someone please correct me, but... Doesn't the DMCA make it illegal to tell others how to bypass effective copy protection mechanisms ?
Kinda sick actually: the nazis can celebrate genocide openly, but woe be to anyone who's talk might possibly decrease potential profits of a corporation.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.