Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Acquittal of German Wikipedia

Posted by Zonk on from the encyclopedia-of-everything-keeps-keeping-on dept.

Rock-n-Rolf writes "In a previous story Slashdot reported that the German Wikipedia was threatened with injunction. The court has now ruled, as reported in German magazine Spiegel, and Wikipedia is likely to remain online (Babelfish translation). The dispute was about Wikipedia publishing the real name of a dead hacker in an article, and the parents objected to this."

8 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Now would be a good time... by greppling · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...to remove the name from article, IMHO. It was important to defend the right to give the name. But the name does not add anything to the article, and if it hurts the feeling of those closely involved, there is a good case for not mentioning it.

    Just because you CAN mention the name, this doesn't mean you have to.

    1. Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is someone's real name not relevant to an article about that person? You can't change history just because you are ashamed of your son.

  2. Misrepresentation by soccerisgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    de.wikipedia.org was never threatened with a shutdown injunction. The injunction was directed at prohibiting www.wikipedia.de, the website of the german wikipedia dependance, to link to de.wikipedia.org. www.wikipedia.de itself has no encyclopedical content whatsoever.

    It seems to me the german wikipedia people are trying to (ab)use this situation to their advantage. They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    1. Re:Misrepresentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

      Makes you wonder what they're up to? What about writing a complete encyclopedia that mentions a persons name in an article about a person?

      Frankly, it's quite ridiculous to think that an encyclopedia article about a person shouldn't mention his name. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral: thus, not including someone's name out of respect to his family is bias, and therefore wrong. It's wholly against their principles of free and non-biased information to remove someone's name simply because someone wants them to.

      Instead of being skeptical about their intentions, which we all already know since they have never shown to be for anything else, why don't we applaud them for being able to take a beating to uphold their principles instead?

    2. Re:Misrepresentation by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And in any case, as of this moment, Boris Floricic is far more notable for this silly business about his name than for what he actually did in his life. Even if the name wasn't relevant before, it certainly is now.

    3. Re:Misrepresentation by n2art2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?

      Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways

      Absolutely, I have no problem with that what so ever. Of course the difference is where fact and fiction collide. Proof of fact bares out some information, while only speculation can bare out some of the topics you pointed out. There is also the issue of braking the law. Violating laws, takes away a level of personal rights. In fact you give up those rights by braking the law.

      That and your comments don't even relate, because you would have to state it something more like this. . .

      "So if I were to write an article about your son, detailing every aspect of his life that relates to the violation and conviction of braking the law, especially who he had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without his significant other knowning)that was illegal in nature, that'd be ok too, because it's just information that is in the public domain and if he had sex with someone else illegally while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?"

      Then your comment might actually hold water, but then again it wouldn't change my point anyway. Your comments are related to potential slander, and the effect as directed towards me and my rights in relation to what you might right. However this is discussing a relative's discomfort/embarassment of being associated with the person in the article. If you intern was elluding to the feelings of my wife being embarassed to be associated with me because my name was used in such a publication, then the issue is still, "under what right does my wife have over my name and her association and discomfort in relation to it being published?"

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
  3. Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights.
    When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

    This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  4. Correction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wikipedia publishes what the people submit.