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."

14 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. Re:Now would be a good time... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know you're right and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

      The truth hurts sometimes... so in those cases, we should just not mention the truth.
      You know, to make sure no one gets offended, or sniffly about anything.

      Perhaps our helpfull Government could do something to protect us from this thing called "truth" and the nefarious rise of factual information dissemination that has been causing everyone so much grief since the adoption of this here intarweb thingy.

    3. Re:Now would be a good time... by Doener · · Score: 2, Informative

      Backround to this: The parants own a travel agency in Berlin and think customers will absence if they know about the son's death because they don't know how to react to this in front of his parents.

  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.
    4. Re:Misrepresentation by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you were writing an encyclopedia article about me, that would be relevant information. It would be your obligation to include it.

      And plus if I'm dead and you write it, I'm really not going to be offended. Because, you know, I'm DEAD.

      --
      My other car is first.
  3. It's a basic policy not anything evil! by ami-in-hamburg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, actually, there is stuff in the media all the time about the Nazi regime including TV, documentaries, news articles, etc...

    Now back on topic, it is a German policy not to use the last name of any person involved in legal matters.

    Newscaster: "Today, Santa C. was arrested on child pr0n charges in Berlin. Santa C. claims to be innocent of the crimes."

    That's just the way they do things here. It seems to apply to certain other situations as well but I haven't been able to find the particulars.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the public information laws or some such nonsense but I see it every night on the 6pm broadcast.

    1. 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/
    2. Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by ami-in-hamburg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok, I looked this up in the German laws. I could only find it in German so I won't bother with a link.

      Apparently, there has always been an absolute right of a person to protect their honor, reputation, and likeness. However, in 1954 it was written into German law. "Persönlichkeit Rechte" "Personal Rights"

      The laws are extremely long and complicated but I was able to find a summary at www.anwalt.de. Anwalt is German for attorney. It would seem that the first initial of the last name is used in order to protect the identity of persons in many situations.

      In this case, a legal matter, it's used to protect the person directly involved in the case so that they can't be targeted by vigilantes or snuffing a witness. It can also be admitted to protect the identity of the family members as well.

      I have also seen this applied to people who have already been convicted so I'm not sure what all the details are concerning when a full last name may or may not be used in public media. I have seen TV reports where the person was sentenced and the news reported the sentencing using only the initial.

  4. Re:Germany. by Doener · · Score: 2, Informative

    BTW: An IMHO good article abaout Free Speech in Germany from the stern magazine in German language you can find here: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/:Deutsche-Tabu s-Engholm-Badewanne/555064.html Babelfish: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stern.de%2F politik%2Fausland%2F%3ADeutsche-Tabus-Engholm-Bade wanne%2F555064.html

  5. Instead of a translation: by greppling · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some facts from the article not mentioned in the summary:

    This decision isn't final yet, the parents will most likely appeal.

    The crucial argument in the court's decision seems to have been that the personal rights of the parents were not violated, since they could not be identified by their last name. This is actually disputable, their name is pretty unique in Germany. (A search in the phone directory didn't turn up anyone with the name.)

    The court did not consider the mentioning of the name a violation of Tron's own personal rights.

    ("Personal rights" is my translation by me of "Persoenlichkeitsrechte", which is technical term in German law speak. Maybe "Right to personal privacy" would be a better translation.)