Mayor of Florence Sues Wikipedia

ZioBit writes "Florence Mayor Leonardo Domenici and one of the city assessors are suing (Google translation) Wikipedia on the basis of a (possible) defamation regarding the handling of public parkings assignation to a private company, "Florence Parking". The apparent problem is that both of their wives are members of the board of directors of "Florence Parking", and Wikipedia is reporting it."

Comments

Re:We slashdotted Google

[CriminalNerd]

Technically, we slashdotted the original article so that Google's translator couldn't translate the page, hence the error.

Added in about 20 mins time:

[James_Duncan8181]

* Domenici also recently launched a widely castigated suit against Wikipedia Foundation.

Nice work on drawing attention to the original problems also...it's always amusing how much political types don't get it.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[NatasRevol]

Citation, or it never happened!

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[GreatBunzinni]

Not quite. Politicians end up using the lawsuit weapon as a damage minimization tool. When the damaging information is already out and there is no possibility to make it go away, to avoid looking corrupt they usually start a bunch of lawsuits so that they can get some spotlight time to announce the world that the entire scandal is nothing more than a smear campaign targeting an innocent, upright citizen. They use that time to tell the world (at least their constituents) that the accusations are nothing more than vicious lies and that they are going to fight those nasty, evil liars and bring them to justice. Then the lawsuit goes on very uninterestingly, the media loses interest on the case, everyone forgets the whole thing and then it doesn't matter the outcome of the case. After all, the last thing that their constituents have heard about that problem was that that honorable politician was fighting those liars who were trying to smear his good name.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[erlehmann]

Here it is, it has even been corrected in virtually no time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Domenici&diff=195140090&oldid=195132037

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[kestasjk]

The problem is lawyers are very biased, and constantly use weasel words.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[whitehatlurker]

Okay, I don't see the part in the entries on wikipedia for "Florence Parking" on either the English nor Italian pages - where are the purported defamations?

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[PPH]

Someone needs to get a translation of the Streisand Effect for them ASAP.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[Anonymous Coward]

they can get some spotlight time to announce the world that the entire scandal is nothing more than a smear campaign targeting an innocent, upright citizen.

As if anyone would believe them! (For the bemefit of any American readers, Florence is in Italy).

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[Anonymous Coward]

(For the bemefit of any American readers, Florence is in Italy) For the benefit of any spelling nazis, see parent.

An American friend who knows a little about geography, thanks.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[kaizokuace]

yea but they are biased to their wallet. Some people know how to speak to wallets.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[kaizokuace]

Why does the streisand effect work? It cant just be because internet exposure blows up out of nowhere when someone makes a statement. It's as if the Internets Collective Consciousness (ICC) only enjoys pointing out and bitchslapping stupid people's idiocy for everyone to see. Just for the purpose of pointing it out and not to get anything done in the world.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[Headcase88]

It's a matter of spite. If someone is trying to bury information that should be public, webmasters will want to make sure it's the most well-known piece of information on the internet, mainly to show what you get for trying to hide it. I rather like the effect myself.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[kaizokuace]

Ahh yes spite was the word on the tip of my tongue. As I lead a wholesome love filled life I have no immediate use for the word spite. It is a bit rusty and I must dust it off. hehe.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[PPH]

Why does the streisand effect work?

I don't think its spiteful behavior so much as the perceived value of a limited or (artificially) restricted commodity.

Anyone who wants can look at my back yard on Google Earth. Nothing there but weeds and a few cars up on cement blocks. But if I expend an inordinate amount of energy hiding it, then there must be something really interesting to see. At least that's the way most people's minds seem to work.

Re:Added in about 20 mins time:

[spun]

they can get some spotlight time to announce the world that the entire scandal is nothing more than a smear campaign targeting an innocent, upright citizen.

As if anyone would believe them! (For the bemefit of any American readers, Florence is in Italy). Okay, but what's Florence doing there? Is she visiting Firenze?

Defense

[Grax]

IANAL, but I looked into this type of lawsuit when someone threatened to sue me for defamation.

An absolute defense against defamation is that the stated item is the truth. For their lawsuit to succeed, it has to be premised that something untrue was said that hurt them.

Re:Defense

[Grax]

FYI, I overlooked the Italian nature of this issue. I looked into this in the United States.

Re:Defense

[autocracy]

In America, yes; the truth is not, however, a defense on its own in all countries.

Re:Defense

[kinzillah]

In the US, sure, but does anyone know how it works in Italy? That would be an important piece of info.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it is not the truth, if Wikipedia believed it was the truth, they where in no means hurting them (on purpose). In other words, if it was a simple mistake (if this is true) or if they did it with the goal of hurting their reputation. A good friend of mine a few years back was sued by someone for this, the judge believed that what was being said about the person to the best of my friends knowledge was true, and therefore couldn't be held accountable, blah blah blah

Re:Defense

[debrain]

For their lawsuit to succeed, it has to be premised that something untrue was said that hurt them.

It appears that itneed not have been intentional. This quick excerpt from a case, citing the Supreme Court of Canada (since the US hasn't gotten their case law online yet): The necessary elements of the tort of defamation are well established. In addition to the obvious need for a defamatory statement, it is an essential element of the cause of action that the defamatory statement be published and then read or heard by a third person (Arnott v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Sask.), [1954] S.C.R. 538 at 565).

You are completely correct that the truth is an absolute defence to the tort of defamation.

Re:Defense

[vajrabum]

This raises about as many questions as it answers but the Britannica say: "In Italy truth seldom excuses defamation, which is criminally punishable there."

Re:Defense

[kinzillah]

Yeah, I had a nasty feeling it was something like that.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past few months I've had to look briefly into Italian law, and every time i learn something new about that country and it's laws I am completely astounded that it's not a 3rd world shithole.. honestly, the way Italian law works leads me to believe that native Italians are 3 hairs short of being baboons.
say what you want about Americans and their fucked up legal system.. Italy is a festering shithole.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Are wikipedia's server's in italy? Do they have an office there? Do they do business there? If not, then I do not see how Italy has jurisdiction.

Re:Defense

[rozz]

In America, yes;

the very source u cited contradicts you .. it says:

" Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive." "

so no, the truth itself is not always a fool-proof legal defense in America ... and if u think about it a bit more, you may also find that truth and legal-truth are quite different things.

Re:Defense

[owlnation]

An absolute defense against defamation is that the stated item is the truth.

In which case they'll lose. There's plenty of truthiness on Wikipedia, but very little truth.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Those statutes are as likely to be used in a real case as Ohio's "It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house." law, or North Carolina's "Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.", or Tennessee's "Stealing a horse is punishible by hanging." laws

Just because a stupid case established precedent, doesn't mean constitutional law, or statutory law doesn't trump it. Therefore, the only way to test these laws is to be brought to suit using them.

Re:Defense

[drsquare]

IANAM (I am not a mobster), but I assume that in Italy the outcome is based on who bribes/threatens the judges most effectively.

Re:Defense

[budgenator]

please note that this "slander." Had already circulated in the past and that in 2004 the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Florence had opened an investigation which led to a conviction in a trial. La voce però (al momento di riportare questa notizia) non è stata modificata e si presenta tutt'ora nella forma contestata da Domenici. The voice but (when reporting this story) has not changed and is still in the form contested by Domenici.

Sounds like the real beef is these guys were convicted but wikipedia isn't report that one of them is appealing the conviction.

Re:Defense

[vajrabum]

If you look here , it indicats that Italian courts have decided that if the content is availble in Italy, then Italian courts have jurisdiction.

Re:Defense

[STrinity]

In the past few months I've had to look briefly into Italian law, and every time i learn something new about that country and it's laws I am completely astounded that it's not a 3rd world shithole..

Um...

Re:Defense

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Are you suggesting that the italian justice system has no way to hurt wikipedia's (by suing it's contributors for example) ?

If so, you are sadly mistaken. Also they can sue, and if damages are awarded, they can ask america (or no matter what country actually) to extract those damages from wikipedia. Certainly if wikipedia just ignores the trial, this will not be a hard thing.

Not paying after a court order is an offence in every single country that exists. And yes, this is supposing the amount is big enough (I believe there's a 5000 euro or so minimum until these accords can be called into action). If an italian court awards 1 million in damages, wikipedia is screwed.

Welcome to the real world. You cannot just run afoul of countries' laws and expect borders to protect you. It just cannot work that way if you want to have international trade.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

The full faith and credit clause of the constitution of the USA requires that judgments in one state be honored in the rest. There is no such requirement in the constitution for extra-national judgments. Italy can ask, that does not mean the USA has to grant their request. Welcome to the real world, where in personam jurisdiction matters.

Re:Defense

[donscarletti]

Firstly, these exceptions are narrow and not relevant to this discussion, bringing them up is immature pedantry. The politician's wives being discussed are not dead and their place on a board is not a natural defect. These exceptions are there because speaking ill of the dead and teasing physical defects achieves no purpose, the general spirit of the law remains that someone has the right to say the truth if it has a point.

Secondly, truth is actually narrower than legal-truth in defamation cases (as discussed in the wikipedia article) since in most cases the defendant must only show that they had a reasonable belief that it was true, rather than it actually being so. If you misunderstand reality you are not liable for speaking your mind unless it can be proven that you were negligent with your facts, i.e. published without checking them. As for real truth, well truth is truth, the courts aren't far enough up their own arse to start calling black white when it comes to facts outside the courtroom, they have enough to confuse inside.

Thirdly, for fuck's sake, if you're going to discuss law at least write "you", capitalise the first letter of sentences and stop using ellipsis as a comma. It makes it easier to read and makes people take you seriously. A little sloppy spelling and grammar is fine, but deliberately garbling a word just to save two letters from your sentence is just pathetic.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think in Italy truth has less value than in the US? This lawsuit is not going anywhere and they already know this. This is just standard answer you get when you openly criticize a public personality and is just media slunt. Unlike the USA, I've never heard someone going bankrupt because of lawsuits in Italy and I doubt Wikipedia Foundation will have any damage because of this

Re:Defense

[efalk]

Sadly, you're wrong. Truth will acquit you if you have the money to file the lawsuit, but lawsuits can be financially devastating even if you win. There is no defense against getting sued.

Re:Defense

[Planesdragon]

If you look here , it indicats that Italian courts have decided that if the content is availble in Italy, then Italian courts have jurisdiction. So the Italian courts can handle the matter. And, if the Wikipedia foundation goes to Italy, they'll have to pay, assuming they don't successfully defend themselves.

But the Untied States won't impose a fine for something as fundamental to American law as freedom of speech. We don't extradite cartoonists who make fun of Mohammad, we don't let Germany fine American web sites that show Nazi symbols, etc.

Re:Defense

[_KiTA_]

If you look here , it indicats that Italian courts have decided that if the content is availble in Italy, then Italian courts have jurisdiction. And now they just have to get everyone ELSE to believe that, and they'll be golden.

What is it with Italy and that, btw? First the Pope (who has as much authority as he can get people to believe he has) and now the Judges (who seemingly want everyone to believe that everyone on Earth has to obey them, presuming they've ever touched an Internet connection). Is it something in the wine?

Re:Defense

[OverlordQ]

In America, yes; the truth is not, however, a defense on its own in all countries.

Yes, but Wikipedia's servers are in Florida. So it really depends on if they're suing WMF, or WM-Italia.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any particyoular reason u youse the word you half the time and letter u the other half? Are you conserving energy by avoiding yousing two keystrokes every other yousage?

Re:Defense

[yogibeaty]

OK, let me rephrase it:
If you want to be taken seriously by anyone with abrain over the age of 21, please write like you give a shit.

Better?

Re:Defense

[Blakey Rat]

Firstly, these exceptions are narrow and not relevant to this discussion, bringing them up is immature pedantry.

Without immature pedantry, every Slashdot story would have, at most, 5 posts.

Re:Defense

[julesh]

In America, yes; the truth is not, however, a defense on its own in all countries.

Wikimedia, however, is a US company, operating only within the US, and therefore only has to comply with US laws.

Individual Wikipedia contributors may or may not be liable, depending on local laws in their own jurisdictions, but I see no grounds on which anyone could sue Wikimedia under any national law other than US.

Re:Defense

[bhtooefr]

If you want to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain, put a space between "a" and "brain." :)

Re:Defense

[Breakfast Pants]

If you win, you always get your legal fees paid; provided you offered a reasonable settlement and it was rejected, or provided you were the defendant.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Log in and say that... I'm sure the Mayor has plenty of lawsuits to go around.

Re:Defense

[epee1221]

You cannot just run afoul of countries' laws and expect borders to protect you.

I do this all the time. Think how many countries' laws I'd be violating just by exercising my 1st Amendment rights. It doesn't matter because I'm outside their jurisdiction.

Re:Defense

[Dan541]

Not paying after a court order is an offence in every single country that exists. And yes, this is supposing the amount is big enough (I believe there's a 5000 euro or so minimum until these accords can be called into action). If an italian court awards 1 million in damages, wikipedia is screwed. I Australia you can get away with it because its not enforced.

I know a case where an Armed Robber was ordered to pay back the money he took and do community service. He did neither and it was upto his victims to file a civil suit to make him comply! The civil suit was never filed because people have more important things to do then goto court.

So in Western Australia you can ignore the supreme court to some extent.

~Dan

Re:Defense

[efalk]

Is this Italy you're referring to? It's certainly not true in the U.S. Here, it's up to the whim of the judge, and they almost never award fees. The U.S. court system likes a lawsuit and does not like to discourage them.

In addition, in my case, I won based on jurisdiction (my lawyers assured me it would be far more expensive to fight on the merits). No legal fees for me.

Re:Defense

[Miseph]

Parent never said that Italians care less about the truth, he simply noted that Italian defamation law may not be the same as American defamation law. It is entirely possible that some detail of the Wikipedia entry runs afoul of Italian law regardless of whether or not it is true.

Re:Defense

[yogibeaty]

I'd have to give ashit. :-))

Re:Defense

[Dun Malg]

Firstly, these exceptions are narrow and not relevant to this discussion, bringing them up is immature pedantry.

Without immature pedantry, every Slashdot story would have, at most, 5 posts. Who modded this funny? It's fucking insightful!

Re:Defense

[autocracy]

Well, for starters, see the Wikipedia Toolserver... run out of Germany.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Usind "firstly, second, thirdly" is a pathetic attempt to prop up one's writing, that's for sure, though they pale in comparison to the lame style of the original poster.

Re:Defense

[mbertini]

Fact: the wives of the mayor and of the other politician are not in the board: Wikipedia reported false facts.

The lie was used as a mean to attack the mayor, kind of guerrilla marketing (you should be familiar with all the false claims on Obama: it's about the same).

A guy in Florence, who tried to spread the false claim has already been sentenced for defamation.

The Slashdot post reports the Fact 1 as true. The guy who reported the story did not get it: incompetence or bad will ?

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, if you think that Italians do not much worse than Americans despite their laws, what does that tell you? :-P

Re:Defense

[rtb61]

Of course you did point out the major difference between defamation in the US and a lot of other countries. In the US you need only establish that you believed it to be the truth, in a lot of other countries you must prove it to be the truth if you declare it as a statement of fact. So when you comment in a global sense, it is far safer to hedge you bets and put everything in the safer format of a opinion. Now likely the law in Italy follows the harsher defamation laws, so the onus is upon the defendant to prove the truth of any allegations made as statements of fact rather than opinion or appearance.

Re:Defense

[rozz]

Firstly, these exceptions are narrow and not relevant to this discussion, bringing them up is immature pedantry. The politician's wives being discussed are not dead and their place on a board is not a natural defect. These exceptions are there because speaking ill of the dead and teasing physical defects achieves no purpose, the general spirit of the law remains that someone has the right to say the truth if it has a point.

my post is 100% relevant for it's context ... it is Not a direct reply to the original article but to the parent and grand-parent posts ... they both state that in America truth is an "absolute defense" .. and i said, "no, it is not Absolute" and supported my statement with a sample.

and btw, for such a master-pedant as u pretend to be, i find ur readin skills quite lacking.

Secondly, truth is actually narrower than legal-truth in defamation cases (as discussed in the wikipedia article) since in most cases the defendant must only show that they had a reasonable belief that it was true, rather than it actually being so. If you misunderstand reality you are not liable for speaking your mind unless it can be proven that you were negligent with your facts, i.e. published without checking them. As for real truth, well truth is truth, the courts aren't far enough up their own arse to start calling black white when it comes to facts outside the courtroom, they have enough to confuse inside.

thx for expanding on my "truth != legal_truth" statement.
but next time u may wanna tone down your answer .. your angry reply tries quite hard to imply that i said something wrong and i did not, i just didnt go into details.

Thirdly, for fuck's sake, if you're going to discuss law at least write "you", capitalise the first letter of sentences and stop using ellipsis as a comma. It makes it easier to read and makes people take you seriously. A little sloppy spelling and grammar is fine, but deliberately garbling a word just to save two letters from your sentence is just pathetic.

firstly, the "fuck's sake" is not somethin i care about, so no i wont do anythin for it.
secondly, this is not a legal forum and not a discussion between lawyers .. so pls go take care of that "fuck's sake" u mentioned.
thirdly, i am not an english native and i dont know the intricate comma/ellipsis/etc rules of english grammar... nor do i care about any of those, i only try to present an Idea in an Understandable form .. i think i did that pretty good and if u don like my writing, there is a very simple solution - just don read it!
fourthly, i can keep posting on this subject up to the 200tly point but the discussion is already a waste of time .. mine and yours.


P.S. many thx for all that seemed to care so much about my writing style ... and next time pls try doin somethin better with ur time .. i am sure u can.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Without immature pedantry, every Slashdot story would have, at most, five posts.

Fixed.

Re:Defense

[palegray.net]

Mod parent up. This is a critical point in the ongoing debate over "Your Rights Online." Even the Chinese apparently understand its validity; unfortunately, they choose to firewall their country in response.

Re:Defense

[Eivind]

You are claiming that a US citizen sitting in USA, doing nothing that is illegal in the USA can nevertheless be forced to pay up as the result of his activities somehow breaking Italian law ?

That is silly, the real world *don't* work like that.

Everyone of us does lots of stuff that is illegal -somewhere- regularily. Nothing happens. The part you're missing is that no country I'm aware of will enforce judgements against people for stuff that isn't also illegal in their own law.

If you're a homosexual that live in USA, there's -zero- chance that the Government will somehow decide to send you to Iran to be executed because that is illegal there.

Yes, judgements can be collected internationally -- if the courts in BOTH countries agree the conduct is illegal, and that the judging court has jurisdiction. (example: My brother got a speeding-ticket in Germany, and was forced to pay despite being Norwegian, because speeding is illegal in both countries, and everyone agrees a german court has jurisdiction when someone drives to fast in Germany)

Re:Defense

[Pope]

i only try to present an Idea in an Understandable form .. i think i did that pretty good and if u don like my writing, there is a very simple solution - just don read it!

That's what he's saying, you are NOT presenting your ideas in an understandable form, it's near-incomprehensible gibberish.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what he's saying, you are NOT presenting your ideas in an understandable form, it's near-incomprehensible gibberish.

thx for the effort but that is like a simple opinion of yours .. and this thread is already much longer than it shouldve been ... it was a simple, short comment to contradict some absolute holder of the "truth" ... and so self-obvious, it didnt need any reply or further comment.

sadly, ppl like to rub the commas instead of talking about ideas ... even mode sad is that most ppl cant even have any kind of idea and are lost without the manual... way too many manuals in this world and the grammar-nazi one is surely one of the lamest.

i responded to the parent because, his grammar delirium aside, it was a good and to the point comment ... and i sincerely dont know exactly why am I replying to u ... maybe cause it's late, i am bored and not sleepy .. but anyway, it doesnt matter, does it?

welcome

[yakumo.unr]

Welcome to the new age of Streisand.

Recent events are just the beginning.

oh my god!

[jollyreaper]

According to Wikipedia, this guy is a total douchebag! *edit* *edit*

Re:oh my god!

[thedeadswiss]

I like the fact that, according to wikipedia, "he graduated in moral philosophy".

Re:oh my god!

[_Sprocket_]

According to Wikipedia, this guy is a total douchebag! *edit* *edit* I have also read that he is personally responsible for the tripling of elephant populations in the past six months.

Re:oh my god!

[jollyreaper]

I have also read that he is personally responsible for the tripling of elephant populations in the past six months. Hey, Stephen's Formula 401 works. Someone's gotta put some real conservatives back in the GOP. By the time he's done, it'll look like a Hindu temple in there.

Just like Wikileaks

[ZachPruckowski]

It's the new hip thing. When you've done something wrong or at least sketchy, and someone's reporting on it, sue them to shut them down. In the old days, it was a lot harder for stuff like this to come out on a national or global scale, but nowadays, with the Internet, anyone with a camera or basic research skills can bust you. It's gotta be driving people white-collar crooks and sleazeballs crazy.

Disclaimer: I don't know the facts of this particular case. I'm just talking about a general trend.

Re:Just like Wikileaks

[ImaLamer]

The best part is that 'weblogs' like Slashdot pick up these stories and their likelihood of becoming common knowledge explode. Wikipedia is 'reporting' this story and they are being sued over spreading this 'untruth' - now Slashdot has just reported it too. Will the mayor of Florence sue CNN when it hits the mainstream media?

Re:Just like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed some quotes, let me help:

The 'best' part is that 'weblogs' like Slashdot pick up these 'stories' and their likelihood of becoming 'common' knowledge 'explode'. Wikipedia is 'reporting' this story and they are being 'sued' over spreading this 'untruth' - now Slashdot has just 'reported' it too. Will the 'mayor' of Florence sue 'CNN' when it hits the 'mainstream media'?

Re:Just like Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Wikipedia the place this story has started? Doesn't everything there must need citation?

Re:Just like Wikileaks

[nahdude812]

Seriously, if it's original to Wikipedia, they could have just slapped a "No Original Content" sticker on the article, and it would have been deleted within a week. Or just complain that it's not notable. Nothing is considered notable on Wikipedia any more, so that would have gotten it deleted.

Pointless Link

[fictionpuss]

Excerpt from the Google Translator:

...The accused - The reason is explained in a note, it's because the "voice" of Leonardo Domenici site charge to the first citizen and his junta some measures and decisions, so it says... Huh? Sure language translation is kinda cool, but it seems a cruel waste of binary to put it through such contortions when the resulting morass is so incomprehensible.

Welcome to international notoriety, Mayor

[pla]

The apparent problem is that both of their wives are members of the board of directors of "Florence Parking", and Wikipedia is reporting it.

Um... I fail to see the problem.

If a conflict of interest exists and someone points it out, you can't (successfully) sue them for defamation. Stating the truth counts as a rock-solid defense.

Also, not too long ago we heard about a similar situation of a blog owner sued for comments posted by a third party - And the courts found that you can't hold the blog owner responsible for those comments. Wiki seems like an analogous situation, IMO, even though not quite a blog.



BTW, IANAL, of course.

Re:Welcome to international notoriety, Mayor

[NormalVisual]

If a conflict of interest exists and someone points it out, you can't (successfully) sue them for defamation. Stating the truth counts as a rock-solid defense.

Apparently this is not the case in Italy though. Maybe we should send the good mayor an hour long looping clip of the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Jack Nicholson rails, "you can't handle the truth!"

Re:Welcome to international notoriety, Mayor

[ScrewMaster]

Stating the truth counts as a rock-solid defense.

In the U.S. most of the time ... but not everywhere in the world, that's for sure.

Parking Corruption

[armada]

Too good. I wonder when they will learn this sort of tactic only fules the public's knowledge of what they are doing. Similar thing happened in the City of Miami Beach (still is as far as I know). The city made a sweet deal with a towing company for the whole island (miami beach is an island) as far as Police Towing was concerned. After this deal, the police started calling businesses on the beach to "help them see" that other methods like the boot were not a good idea. In one case, the chief of police actually visited a strip mall to help them "come around" and use the same company the city was using. They city then quietly stopped allowing the renewal of licenses to other towing companies.

Re:Parking Corruption

[armada]

Here is some irony:

Leonardo Domenici (born July 12, 1955) is an Italian politician. He has been the Mayor of Florence since June 13, 1999. Domenici was born in Florence, from where he graduated in moral philosophy Article

Re:Parking Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with the comment you replied to?

Re:Parking Corruption

[armada]

I posted it below my last one as an attempt to keep my two comments/thoughts together but it, by itself was not germane to the parent.

Florence. where ?

[mbone]

(There are Florence's in Florida, Georgia, California and for all I know every state in the Union.)

Since this particular Florence is the one in Italy, the laws on defamation are pretty different from the US. I would not trust any legal
analysis in Slashdot for any jurisdiction, but for Italy I would trust it even less than usual.

Re:Florence. where ?

[ScrewMaster]

Illiterate twit. He was, in fact, pointing out that America is not the center of the world and that Slashdot readers shouldn't assume that a basic tenet of American law applies anywhere else.

Sheesh. With friends like you ...

Re:Florence. where ?

[k33l0r]

(There are Florence's in Florida, Georgia, California and for all I know every state in the Union.)

I'm happy that slashdot continues to have some sort of respect for the intellect of the reader. I'm pretty sure that everybody here made the mental connection to Italy, and if they didn't, they should be reading Geography 101 instead of slashdot. Espicially with the "Google Translate" link. And the original document in Italian.

Crafications such as 'London, England' are only necessary when it is likely that the reader could be confused. Hence there is no need to write 'Beijing, China', for example

The "dumbing down" of American media isn't really apparent until you compare similar publications from the US to their closest British counterparts. Compare Newsweek or Time Magazine to The Economist or The New York Times to The Guardian. And this isn't just my opinion, it has been validated in studies of the matter.

Re:Florence. where ?

[Thugthrasher]

Well, ignoring the fact that he WASN'T saying the US is the center of the world... If he HAD been, how exactly would that make him RACIST?

Re:Florence. where ?

[k33l0r]

You preview the thing five times yet just as you hit the 'Submit' button you notice that you've written 'Crafications' instead of 'Clarifications'

Re:Florence. where ?

[Kierthos]

I didn't immediately make the connection. I mean, sure, there was a link to a translated page from Google, but that just means that it could have Florence, South Carolina, and it was translated out of redneckian.

That was a joke, in case anyone missed it.

Re:Florence. where ?

[david@ecsd.com]

You preview the thing five times yet just as you hit the 'Submit' button you notice that you've written 'Crafications' instead of 'Clarifications'

That's okay, I just figured you were from Beijing, China.

Re:Florence. where ?

[Wizard Drongo]

Just wanted to make a point about one of my pet hates; that is, americans always putting a country's name after the place name. E.G. Paris, France, or Rome, Italy, as if there was another more famous populous Rome or Paris somewhere. I suspect the tradition started as a result of american isolationist tendency's meaning a majority of americans didn't actually know where Paris was (as opposed to Paris in Louisiana) , but regardless, it sure is annoying and condescending as hell. Especially since I, along with the rest-of-the-world do things slightly more sensibly. Where two or more places are named the same, we generally call the largest and/or most populous/famous one by just its name, then any other instance of it by its name followed by geographic designation. For example, Cambridge is in southern England. There's also another Cambridge in the USA. But, even though Cambridge MA is about the same size as Cambridge, England, and, likewise has one of the worlds great learning seats (Harvard and MIT), Cambridge on its own refers to the one in England, whereas Cambridge Mass. is how one refers to the home of Harvard.

Re:Florence. where ?

[Jardine]

Crafications such as 'London, England' are only necessary when it is likely that the reader could be confused.

There's a sizable city in Ontario also named London. It's usually pretty easy to figure out which London is being referred to (if the news source isn't based in Ontario, it's almost certainly the one in England). The really annoying thing is there are duplicate names for other locations within the two cities. Both have a Hyde Park, a Thames River, and a Covent Garden Market. It's probably a good thing London, Ontario didn't become the capital of Canada or it'd be even more confusing.

Re:Florence. where ?

[Lingerance]

Just wanted to make a point about one of my pet hates; that is, americans always putting a country's name after the place name. E.G. Paris, France, or Rome, Italy
You mean like Paris, Ontario, Canada; or London, Ontario, Canada; or Rome, Georgia, USA? Honestly, city names are _not_ unique. Yes they may be famous but say a newspaper from Ontario was talking about Paris, is that the one in Ontario or in France? What-if a reader comes from a place where the name of a famous city is used as a non-famous city nearby? Also, generally, general trends like referring to Cambridge as the one in England may be habit to Europeans but it might not be habit to those who live near Cambridge Mass, or even worse an African, Asian or elsewhere viewers/readers may have not a clue which city is being referred to. The English language has enough inherent ambiguity, we need no more, thank you.

Re:Florence. where ?

[FooAtWFU]

Just wanted to make a point about one of my pet hates; that is, americans always putting a country's name after the place name. E.G. Paris, France, or Rome, Italy, as if there was another more famous populous Rome or Paris somewhere. The United States has stolen a lot of city names from elsewhere. As other posters have pointed out, there is a Florence in Florida. (Also, Alabama, Oregon, Kentucky, Mississippi, Colorado, Wisconsin, Montana, and Massechutses. We have Rome in Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, and Mississippi. There are also at least 9 Parises. This disambiguation is a matter of convention, and in general it helps prevent confusion. Is it such a travesty that someone then uses this more-specific naming convention for a major world city? Did the seven bytes of information in ", Italy" really tax your internet connection that much?

It seems to me like you're just looking for an excuse to get annoyed at Americans...

Re:Florence. where ?

[Random832]

However, Wikipedia is _not_ located in Italy. Remember the case a while back when Germany tried to get wikipedia to censor stuff? All they could do was take away the domain name "wikipedia.de" - which isn't even what's normally used to access it (the canonical url for german wikipedia articles starts "de.wikipedia.org" )

Re:Florence. where ?

[jc42]

Just wanted to make a point about one of my pet hates; that is, americans always putting a country's name after the place name. E.G. Paris, France, or Rome, Italy, as if there was another more famous populous Rome or Paris somewhere.

Funny, I've often found myself asking questions on mailing lists due to the omission of the country name from an announcement of an event. Thus, recently on a dance-related list, I asked whether the events in Manchester a Dublin were in New Hampshire, or in England and Ireland. To a resident of the Boston area, all four of these towns are well known, and the particular announcements made sense for the New Hampshire towns as well as those towns over across the Pond.

For that matter, I once read an announcement of an event in Boston, and it turned out to be the Boston in the UK, not far from Cambridge -- which is another familiar place name both here and there. People in the UK tend to assume that everyone knows the names of towns in their country, but in fact their Boston is not the one most people will assume when they see the name.

Adding the country name doesn't take many extra bytes, and it alleviates the need for followup messages asking which of the various places by that name was meant. We should all get used to the idea that on the Internet, you always include the country name, even if it's perfectly obvious to you which country you're writing about.

Re:Florence. where ?

[Wizard Drongo]

See, that might work, and what you say may be valid, were it not for another annoying tendency of Americans that is to assume we all a) have 'states' (Makes it real fun on web-based forms for the 80-odd other countries in the world that don't live in a 'state') and b) we all know what some random obscure two letter abbreviation after a place name means (I know it's a US State, but which one? There are like 50). My argument was not that we shouldn't identify which country somethings in, merely that 9 times out of 10 it''s completely obvious; if it's a second-hand name, of some tiny backwards little hamlet in the middle of redneck-land USA versus a major world capital city, it's kinda silly saying "Rome, Italy", when really, you just say "Rome". If you mean a place other than the one most people would automatically assume, you say "Rome, USA". For instance, if I see Houston written somewhere, I automatically assume it's Houston, Texas, USA. Not the Houston that's about 15 miles away from me here in Scotland. Why? 'Cause Houston, Scotland is a tiny wee shithole, not a major city. Ditto, Dublin in New Hampshire isn't a major place. It's not even a sodding village! It's only got a thousand or so people living there. Dublin, Ireland however is a major city, the capital city of Ireland, and home to 1.6 million people. So if you say "Dublin", even if I lived in the same state as Dublin in the USA, I'll still assume you're talking about the major world city, not the tiny little one-pub town. American's however automatically assume that some tiny shitty place in the USA is far more relevant and important than a major world city not in the USA. And that dismissive, patronising superior attitude pisses a lot of folks off. Not the adding "Italy" onto the end of "Rome", but the reason you're adding it.

Re:Florence. where ?

[alexburke]

That's okay, I just figured you were from Beijing, China. I, myself, thought he was from Beijing, Illinois...

Re:Florence. where ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Birmingham, AL you insensitive clod!

Re:Florence. where ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you had me convinced that 'cratifications' was a word chosen deliberately for it's precision of meaning, and that my vocabulary was in need of a tune up!

Re:Florence. where ?

[smithmc]

American's however automatically assume that some tiny shitty place in the USA is far more relevant and important than a major world city not in the USA. And that dismissive, patronising superior attitude pisses a lot of folks off. Kudos on your tolerance and understanding of our cultural differences. People around the world would get along so much better if we were all like you...

Re:Florence. where ?

[jonadab]

Actually, I'm on one mailing list where Dublin would normally refer to the suburb of Columbus. However, that's a local usergroup mailing list, albeit for a fairly large region. Normally if I saw a reference to Dublin on the internet I would assume the one in Ireland. Rome and Paris, likewise, I would assume to be the ones in Italy and France respectively. Similarly, it isn't necessary to spell out "Baghdad, Iraq" or "Rio de Janiero, Brasil" in full every time. (In fact, I've seen the latter abbreviated to just "Rio".)

But that's *not* true for all city names, not even all names of fairly well-known cities. Lexington, for instance, is quite thoroughly ambiguous. For an Old World example, try Antioch. For an example that crosses the water, try Toledo or Memphis. I've also seen unqualified references to Cambridge, in an international context, that in the larger context of what was being said were very obviously referring to the one in Massachussetts. (In fairness, this was in the context of organic chemistry, an industry with a major presence in that city.)

As far as states, most countries of any significant size do have them. They just don't always call them "states". Japan for instance calls them "prefectures". (Well, actually, they call them something in Japanese, but "prefectures" is the usual English translation.) Canada calls them "provinces". The UK, just to be completely contrary to all normal logic, calls them "countries". Whatever, it's the same thing. Getting upset over what exactly they're called is, in a word, silly, particularly if you know very well what is meant. (Of course, I've seen sites with a drop-down list of states and fifty choices, which is a bit of a gaffe...)

Re:Florence. where ?

[Wizard Drongo]

Yeah, it was the sites that have a list of 50 US states, the Canadian provinces, and sometimes, just sometimes, the Australian states too, all on a drop down. And if you don't select one of them, the form won't complete.
It's that kind of sloppy coding that upsets people; it's not so much that Americans all have this towering isolationist arrogance, just that their perceived indifference to the rest of the entire world, coupled with the few examples of the ones that do make for very bad PR. And not to get all political but your latest "president" (I use the term loosely understanding as I do that to be president one must be "elected", and I'd be mighty suspicious about that were I you) hasn't particularly gone out of his way to make America popular anywhere recently.....

On the UK and countries/states thing, this is something that confuses Americans all the time. This one is fair to be confused about though...

Here's how it all goes.. The UK, as it's full title (The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and her Isles and Territories) is made up of 4 constituent countries. Not states like the US, but separate nations (and not everyone is too chuffed about that, either).

Wales was the first to fall to England, as a conquest, last being independent in 1415. Until recently though, it was always referred to as part of England, usually hear as "England & Wales", sharing a common law, education and organisational system. This is despite the fact that out of the 4 UK nations, Wales is the only one to have a major used other language; Welsh. Until the early 1900's, the majority of people in Wales only spoke welsh, despite the english forcing children to speak english in schools, beating the ones that didn't (with a big thick rope called a "Welsh Knot" in case you're curious). Since then the language has died out a bit, with about 30% of the Welsh speaking Welsh as a first language. However, during the '60's, welsh independence started a major upturn, successfully getting the Welsh Language Act passed (means there are schools that teach in welsh,all the roadsigns have to be in both languages and they have a tv channel) and various other things. Since the 90's, devolution has meant Wales has a parliament, called the National Assembly, albeit one that can't really pass many laws at all, having very few powers, no-taxing raising ones at all; it's still better than no representation at all.

Moving along now, we have Scotland, my home. Scotland was a completely independent nation until quite recently, falling in bed with England in 1707, in highly dubious circumstances. To put it bluntly, the Scots parliament ran out of money, and the individual members were bribed into accepting a union with england. They didn't even bother to consult the members of the public. There was massive rioting and unrest about this, but the english military soon put stop to that (Battle of Culloden, 1745). Since the 90's, Scotland too has a parliament, given that during the 80's the UK was run by a party that had massive appeal in England but not one single MP from Scotland (bit undemocratic really). Unlike Wales, the Scottish Parliament actually does have some law-making powers, as well as tax-raising ones, although a lot of issues are "reserved" by Westminster, including defence, foreign affairs, the EU, transport, whole bag of things. Even gun laws.
At this point you're probably thinking, heh, our State governments have more power than that, so they are just like States. But you'd be wrong. For instance, the current government in Holyrood (that's where our Parliament is) is an SNP one. The Scottish National Party's avowed and primary goal is full Scottish independence. Right now there's a big hooha about powers for Holyrood; most of the major parties agree the parliament should have more powers, but they range from the Labour party who want to give over as few as possible (they're also in charge of the current UK government and very pro-union, anti-scots-independence) to the S

Re:Florence. where ?

[jonadab]

It isn't in the President's job description to make the US popular overseas. In fact, if the President were pandering to Europe, I would view that as an inappropriate neglect of his duties to the nation that elected him.

Not that I agree with everything the current administration has done. I don't, at least, not entirely. Nonetheless, Europeans have no business whatsoever thinking that their opinions out to influence the actions of the US President. We don't tell *your* elected officials what to do. Go jump in a lake.

> The UK [...] is made up of 4 constituent countries.

Yeah...

> Not states like the US, but separate nations (and not everyone is too chuffed about that, either).

Semantic games. In fairness, the US played approximately the same semantic games for the first roughly century and a half of its existence, and settled the matter via a bloody civil war, with an ugly "reconstruction" period afterward that left some unfortunate marks on our culture. So perhaps the British way of dealing with the matter, i.e., continuing to play the semantic games, is better.

I find it odd that some of your "constituent countries" can't even raise taxes independently of your federal/national/whatever government. I find it even odder, decidedly undemocratic, and a bit anacronistic, that they do not have equal standing. (The word "reserved" is also used in a way that's approximately backwards to how it's used in the US, where a "reserved power" is something that the federal government is not supposed to be able to do anything about, though in practice they sometimes get around that by offering money with strings attached to the states out of federal taxes, which *ought* to have been unconstitutional but the founding fathers probably just weren't devious enough and/or jaded enough to think of it.)

> Scotland was a completely independent nation until quite recently, falling in bed with England in 1707

"The difference between the US and the UK is, the English think a hundred miles is a long ways, and Americans think a hundred years is a long time."

Seriously, world political geography looked a *LOT* different in 1707. Almost every nation on the planet had different borders then in one place or another, and many (including Germany, Italy, and the United States) did not exist. And yet, somehow, we must get over that and accept the way things are now if we are to ever move forward. Otherwise we'll be glaring at one another and making fools of ourselves with laughably ridiculous assertions, like China with its preposterous One China Policy, which has about the same relationship with reality that hexane has with water.

> Right now there's a big hooha about powers for Holyrood; most of the major parties agree the
> parliament should have more powers, but they range from the Labour party who want to give over
> as few as possible (they're also in charge of the current UK government and very pro-union,
> anti-scots-independence) to the SNP, who of course want independence...

In the US we called this debate "states' rights", and we (mostly) settled it via a bloody civil war in the nineteenth century. There are even people in the South who are still bitter about it. But not very many these days, as a percentage. (There's historically always been a fair bit of state-to-state population shift within the US, and a lot of us had ancestors on both sides... I know I did. I live in north-central Ohio, and there are a *lot* of people around here whose grandparents were from Kentucky, for instance, not to mention all the people whose ancestors immigrated from Europe in the twentieth century...)

> One of the smaller parties in the last Scots parliament was the Scottish Socialist Party...
> put it this way, they have a red flag and read a lot of Russian literature, ja?

Da, we have a Communist Party in the US as well, but it never gets any electoral votes (heck, it never even gets close enough to smell them), and w

Re:Florence. where ?

[Wizard Drongo]

I doubt it would go into the Balkans. I just see Westminster as being irrelevent; The reason is simple. England has 50 million people in it. Scotland has about 5 million. Therefore the government of the UK has to cater to the needs of the english population. Sometimes, these needs correspond with the needs of the Scottish public. Most times however, it does not. Scotland has a totally different society, and has a different economic basis, and solutions that work well for South-East England totally fail here in Scotland. I'd prefer a government from this country that has the needs of this country's people at heart, not those of the neighbouring one.

So *who* are they actually suing?

[damn_registrars]

Wikipedia is headquartered in the US. Do they have an Italian office? I see that a ping to "it.wikipedia.org" returns the same IP address (208.80.152.2) as "en.wikipedia.org". So I'm not sure that wikipedia actually has any sort of physical presence in Italy.

Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it can be difficult to sue someone in a different country, particularly if you aren't going to their country to file the suit. If they file suit against them in Italian court, I'd expect it would be difficult to enforce a judgement from across the pond.

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[Toe, The]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Software_and_hardware

"Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Seoul."

P.S. Gotta love those network topology diagrams. Pretty dang nice for a nonprofit. :)

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[The Snowman]

Wikipedia is headquartered in the US. Do they have an Italian office? I see that a ping to "it.wikipedia.org" returns the same IP address (208.80.152.2) as "en.wikipedia.org". So I'm not sure that wikipedia actually has any sort of physical presence in Italy.

Of course, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it can be difficult to sue someone in a different country, particularly if you aren't going to their country to file the suit. If they file suit against them in Italian court, I'd expect it would be difficult to enforce a judgement from across the pond.

This was my thought too. While Italian law is certainly different and this may be a valid argument in Italian court, the hurdle here is twofold. First, prove that Wikipedia is itself at fault for the contents. Given the open source documentation license they use, I am not sure they could prove that. Second, they would need to get someone who is legally able to represent Wikipedia into Italian court.

For this to work, I believe they would need to convince a U.S. Federal court to extradite people to Italy, and given the merits of this case, I doubt that would happen.

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[Pig Hogger]

Dunno, but to me, those cones look a bit too much like MIRVs...

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[damn_registrars]

For this to work, I believe they would need to convince a U.S. Federal court to extradite people to Italy, and given the merits of this case, I doubt that would happen.
Can people actually be extradited to face a civil case? I know that criminals can be extradited to face criminal charges - but I am not aware of anyone having been extradited anywhere to face a civil suit.

Of course, as I've already stated, IANAL. So if someone knows better, please let us know. I guess I just figured since civil cases don't really represent the interests of the state per se, that the state wouldn't be interested in moving for extradition for the parties involved.

And of course we do have the whole question of how Italian law may differ from American.

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[Jesus_666]

P.S. Gotta love those network topology diagrams. Pretty dang nice for a nonprofit.

Of course. They just made a node called "Wikipedia Design Principles" and when they were sure that the smartest minds of Wikipedia had contributed, they used it to build their network. That's why they have such a robust computer network and Monster Deluxe power strips with gilded contacts for 99.5% lower impedance in the crucial 220 Hz level.

Re:So *who* are they actually suing?

[Dan541]

While Italian law is certainly different and this may be a valid argument in Italian court, the hurdle here is twofold. First, prove that Wikipedia is itself at fault for the contents. Given the open source documentation license they use, I am not sure they could prove that. Second, they would need to get someone who is legally able to represent Wikipedia into Italian court.

For this to work, I believe they would need to convince a U.S. Federal court to extradite people to Italy, and given the merits of this case, I doubt that would happen.

At the end of the day Wikipedia can safely ignore any ruling by an Italian court so long as they are not in Italy.

~Dan

Lets get this over with:

[nurb432]

Someone owns the right to everything, so lets just have everyone sue everyone else then call a truce before we bankrupt the entire planet.

Dude, there's an edit button

[Toe, The]

I can't understand how anyone can sue anyone for statements made in an openly editable living document.

Wouldn't it be a bit simpler to click the edit button and change the perceived falsehoods in an encyclopedic manner?

I imagine one could even hire a geek to do it for quite a bit less than the price of hiring a lawyer, filing a lawsuit, then pursuing that suit.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[lastchance_000]

It's still there in the history, and publicly available. Others have pointed out that truth may or may not be a relevant factor in the case.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[Sundo]

The fact he's suing in the first place shows he simply doesn't understand the principles behind Wikipedia, so it's faily impossible for him to realize that. Of course he could have tried to get some information before making a fool of himself, but then again he's an italian politician. It has to be in the genes.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[headpushslap]

The point is not that you can edit it, but that libelous statements can permanently damage someones' reputation.

Suing for money is one remedy, you could also sue for a written or posted apology or retraction, or many other things.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the mayor is a lawyer and filed the suit without help. After all, there have been instances of stupid lawyers becoming stupid politicians.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[ChameleonDave]

The point is not that you can edit it, but that libelous statements can permanently damage someones' reputation.

Suing for money is one remedy, you could also sue for a written or posted apology or retraction, or many other things. The Corriere article states, "The entry [...] has still not been edited, hence the decision to go ahead with the lawsuit." This implies that he's suing because he doesn't understand that he can change it at any time.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[kaizokuace]

They probably don't know that you can edit wiki articles. So with that premise they go straight to shenanigans.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[Kamineko]

We get the police to do that these days.

Re:Dude, there's an edit button

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fact he's suing in the first place shows he simply doesn't understand the principles behind Wikipedia"

Why do you think so? Here comes mine: The fact that you are showing for a "fact" something based on unknown motivations on a third person shows that you simply don't understand the very basics of human nature.

There.

And now, for a car-based example (well, not. Not a car this time): what if i.e. he is absolutely on the knows about not only what Wikipedia is about but about the probable outcome of a civil trial against a corp. based on a foreign country (that is: nihil) and still he, as the politician he is, evaluated his overall gains to be more by sueing Wikipedia than stay silence?

"but then again he's an italian politician. It has to be in the genes"

Yeah, well, that shoddy country with the kind of shoddy politicians that on a distant past managed to rule the known world, that gave regarding politics minds like that of Machiavello or that somehow on the not so distant past managed for a bazillion of USA individuals to get being killed so they could regain their freedom.

Sue whom exactly.

[qbzzt]

The Wikipedia Foundation is a US corporation, which does not hold assets in Italy, so it can't be sued in an Italian court. Or, to be more accurate, it can be sued but the verdict would be meaningless.

However, Wikipedia does have an Italian chapter ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters ). I assume that is the organization being sued.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[efalk]

There's a lot more to it than where you're incorporated.

If you do business in Italy, you can be sued there. In fact, the determining factor on whether or not you can be sued in Italy is whether or not an Italian court says you can.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[lexarius]

Exactly what business does Wikipedia do in Italy? Aside from delivering HTML to Italian IP addresses for free on request? I can see that going well.
Italy: Come over here so we can sue you, or else we'll start blocking your packets!
Wiki: Suck it, and good luck with that.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[jefu]

How about something like "Remove this vile calumny or we'll ..." :
1. Remove Wikipedia's DNS entry in Italy. (See recent Wikileaks problems.)
2. Publish (in Italy at least) routing information that redirects Wikipedia requests to a black hole. (See recent You Tube problems.)

I think the Mayor's goal may not include preventing random residents of (say) Nevada from reading about his (alleged) corruption (after all, what does he care about what someone in Vegas thinks?), but probably does include preventing people in Italy from doing the same.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

He said they could be sued, but without an operations there, there isn't any way to enforce the judgment, which is entirely consistent with what you said.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[julesh]

There's a lot more to it than where you're incorporated.

If you do business in Italy, you can be sued there.

That's not actually true. The general standard is that a company can be sued in a country in which it has a "permanent establishment", which normally translates to an office or an employed agent. It's the same rule that determines whether they have to pay tax there or not.

Re:Sue whom exactly.

[efalk]

Ahh, well, teach me to apply what I learned in North Dakota to Italy.

In my case in ND, part of the legal standard is how interactive the web site is. I actually had to defend my web site as static content, while Reynolds' lawyer argued that the presence of CGI scripts by definition made the site interactive enough to cause jurisdiction to apply. We also argued about whether a traceroute packet that ended up at a ND server was sufficient "making contact" to create jurisdiction.

What jurisdiction

[tepples]

If a conflict of interest exists and someone points it out, you can't (successfully) sue them for defamation. Stating the truth counts as a rock-solid defense. Two questions must be answered:

1. To what extent is truth a defense in Italy?
2. To what extent does Wikimedia Foundation have assets in Italy?

Jurisdiction?

[MostAwesomeDude]

Does Wikipedia even have servers or an office in Italy? If not, then their lawsuit is pretty damn pointless.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[WWWWolf]

Does Wikipedia even have servers or an office in Italy? If not, then their lawsuit is pretty damn pointless.

Basically, the tendency is that you're not supposed to sue Wikipedia; it's better to try solve the issue first through ordinary channels. It's a procedure that's being used in a lot of subprojects too, due to practical reasons. I'm pretty sure they failed to follow this in this case...

However, it should be noted that some Wikimedia projects (Finnish Wikipedia, for example) do apply local laws in a very limited fashion. For example, as far as I know, Finnish Wikipedia it only applies to copyrights (the US Fair Use law isn't considered, but the basically equivalent law, the "right of quotation" in the Finnish copyright law, is used instead). I can almost imagine there would be similar rules in place in case of libel, but it's basically an user conduct issue and mostly handled through the above principle anyway. Besides all legal issues should be brought against Wikimedia Foundation anyway.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Frosty Piss]

Something I haven't seen here and will probably be wildly explained away, is: Is it Wikipedia's place to be a forum for news reporting and political social change? Is that outside the scope of an "encyclopedia"? Is this type of content really relevant is an encyclopedic article on Florence?

Obviously it's a conflict of interest for the mayor of Florence, but how is it relevant in an encyclopedic article on Florence?

If Wikipedia wants to include this type of political activism the will have to accept the consistences.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[jefu]

Is it Wikipedia's place to be a forum for news reporting and political social change?

Wikipedia's place? While Wikipedia as a bunch of servers may belong to the Wikimedia foundation, Wikipedia as content belongs to its readers and to its editors. The content provided by these people is what they agree (with whatever mechanisms) it is. No more, no less. The question is rather like those proposed by ./ readers who wonder if "Slashdot" is not being inconsistent when there are multiple, often contradictory, opinions offered - by slashdot users - on various topics (patents, copyright... ).

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia's place? While Wikipedia as a bunch of servers may belong to the Wikimedia foundation...

Don't be an ASS, you know what the parent is talking about.

If Wikipedia wants to get involved in politics, they will continue to be targets like this.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Frosty Piss]

The question is rather like those proposed by ./ readers who wonder if "Slashdot" is not being inconsistent when there are multiple, often contradictory, opinions offered - by slashdot users - on various topics (patents, copyright... ).

Not at all. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, which to be taken seriously as an on-line encyclopedia needs to be strictly NPOV. Getting involved in local politics is not NPOV.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[WWWWolf]

Something I haven't seen here and will probably be wildly explained away, is: Is it Wikipedia's place to be a forum for news reporting and political social change? Is that outside the scope of an "encyclopedia"? Is this type of content really relevant is an encyclopedic article on Florence?

For a random example, if a person is involved in a scandal of some sort, years later someone might wonder "hey, wasn't this guy charged with X a few years back? It was all over the tabloids, I vaguely remember that, but what happened afterwards?" and they go read the article and it says "In 2008 the guy was charged with X(source)(source)(source), resulting in a major discussion in area F on politics surrounding issue Z(source)(source)(source). Later that year the charges were cleared later that year and persons Y and W were found guilty instead(source)(source)." However, if it's not there and it was a Major News Story of the Year, the reader might found it puzzling that the issue isn't mentioned at all in the biography! Thus I see limited news coverage of significant issues relating the individual's careers useful and encyclopaedic. But storms in the teacup are generally not worth covering in my opinion, nor is really really extended discussion of minor details warranted - but I have to say that sometimes people do get overboard with this...

Good stuff in a world of fiction Truth Publicity

[FromTheAir]

The egoic mind seems to always ultimately achieve the opposite of it's intentions because it lacks wisdom. Here again we have someone trying to silence something bringing the world's attention to it. We have a world and systems based on a lot of ignorance and secrecy. Two things the Internet and the dissemination of intelligence are eliminating. This means everything with a foundation of ignorance is collapsing.

The general population, once easy to keep ignorant, is becoming much more aware. Of course they have a good distance to go before we become really wise and fully informed.

It is going to be turbulent as we switch from a fictional world with a huge artificial economy with unnecessary cost burdens, to a truth and reality based one.

The lethal text is an interesting collection of memetic engineering documents.

http://i----i.org/infinite_play_lethal_text_series.htm

Inventor of bureaucracy

[SpaghettiPattern]

Italy is the inventor of bureaucracy. Italians know how to stifle their opponents through paperwork.

Defamation is one of the proffered decoys. I experienced this twice on me and I felt ashamed to be an Italian.

I lived abroad for over 30 years and I can see the perspective clearer than Italian inhabitants can. The stupid bureaucratic attitude is what is preventing the country to flourish.

The excuses for this behaviour are: Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati and Alfa Romeo. Not just a small consolation but still...

Re:Inventor of bureaucracy

[oldhack]

Heh, I thought it was the Chinese that invented bureaucracy. And they don't even have Lamborghini. On the other hand, they have the General Tso's Chicken.

Hm... there is a pattern here. Folks with noodles are all tangled up.

'Right, Enough pre-morning-coffee gibberish.

Re:Inventor of bureaucracy

[Swampash]

The stupid bureaucratic attitude is what is preventing the country to flourish.

Maybe they remember running the world for thousands of years, and just can't be f*cked any more?

This is actually kinda frightening...

[BUL2294]

First off, I think Wikipedia should ignore the Italian courts and give a big virtual F-U. I think more companies are going to start doing that over Internet posts, sites, etc. and claim they're only bound by their home laws. (The French charges against eBay for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia come to mind). I think this lawsuit thing is the tip of the iceberg--companies and individuals will start getting sued in foreign jurisdictions because a particular comment, post, etc. was "made available" to a computer in that foreign country...

Which makes me start to realize something... Let's say a government pressed criminal charges. Here's a hypothetical example that doesn't seem so far-fetched... I make an anti-Chinese government site/post/blog from my home PC in the US, and that really pisses the Chinese government off. Since there's no free speech in China (but my website manages to get past the Great Firewall of China), I get criminally charged with "disrespecting the government" or some crap like that and they issue an international arrest warrant. I could then be arrested in the US and would have to hire a lawyer as to why I shouldn't be extradited to China--even though I exercised my right to free speech according to the US Constitution, while in the US . Even if I persuade a judge to not grant the extradition request (in all likelihood, at great expense to me), I could never travel outside the US as I could be arrested at any time and extradited from a country with no vested interest in preventing a foreigner from being extradited to China. Frightening, isn't it?

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[imipak]

You think this is frightening? Just wait 'til you see what Zebedee and Dougal have got planned.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[maxume]

There is a reasonable chance that the US government would go ahead and not extradite you by default, and if China still wanted to extradite you, they would have to have a lawyer plead their case in a US court, in which case, the US government would be the defendant, and they would defend themselves. If they lost that suit, then you would have to get a lawyer to defend yourself from the US government, but the they wouldn't lose that suit, especially in the case of a Constitutional issue. So, no, you would not have to defend yourself at great expense.

Really, the implications of traveling outside one's own country are only frightening if you have previously failed to realize that there are many countries in the world that have different rules. It hasn't ever been the case that the rights granted by a country apply to its citizens while they are in other countries; this is referred to as "sovereignty". Governments will often fight for their citizens in other countries, but they rarely do anything that is illegal in the country at issue.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[BUL2294]

It hasn't ever been the case that the rights granted by a country apply to its citizens while they are in other countries; this is referred to as "sovereignty".

No shit, Sherlock. I was referring to the fact that such an example would essentially leave people in exile in their own countries. Not to mention the fact what an outstanding international arrest warrant could do to someone's future job prospects, etc. All of this despite the guarantees in the Constitution...

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[HexaByte]

You don't understand the process. No country accepts the right of another to charge anyone with a crime that was not COMMITTED in that country, or by a citizen to that country abroad.

For them to charge you would be meaningless, unless you are a Chinese citizen. Even being (legitimately) charged, they have to request extradition, and hire (local)lawyers to represent them at the hearing. It's not cheap, and not very likely they would try it unless they thought they had a good chance of success.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[rcw-home]

I could then be arrested in the US

Assuming that your local police are really stupid and/or bought off...

and would have to hire a lawyer as to why I shouldn't be extradited to China

China would be footing your legal bill (18 USC 3195) but even the average public defender could argue that successfully:

1. The US has no extradition treaty with China. (Wikipedia)
   
2. Even if they did, you'd have to actually commit a crime in Chinese jurisdiction (i.e. be in China) (18 USC 3184).
   
3. Even if you did, the crime would have to be a violent one (18 USC 3181).
   
4. Even if it was, it'd also have to be a crime in the US (18 USC 3181).
   

Even if I persuade a judge to not grant the extradition request (in all likelihood, at great expense to me), I could never travel outside the US as I could be arrested at any time and extradited from a country with no vested interest in preventing a foreigner from being extradited to China.

The concept of nationalism is based on the idea that your country will protect you. It's kind of lost on a lot of Americans since it's been quite a while since we've gone toe-to-toe with a foreign army on our own soil. But if such a thing happened, I would expect a lot of diplomatic saber-rattling, perhaps an embargo of the country that extradited you (likely ruining their tourism economy), and if that fails, a military response. With such a flowchart on most leaders' minds, they will generally refuse extraditions for political reasons.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[Naturalis Philosopho]

First, I agree with your sentiment. However, since you're lambasting someone for not knowing how the world does/has work(ed), I'll kindly point out that you need to look up the principle of extraterritoriality and how it's been applied throughout the colonial era, and today. It may help you understand why you went too far in your claim that "It hasn't ever been the case that rights granted by a country apply to its citizens while they are in other countries". While I'd argue it's ok that we still use extraterritoriality world-wide for diplomats, having had entire cities, like Shanghai, where a country can't exercise it's sovereignty didn't win friends. And lest you think that this idea isn't used anymore outside of the diplomatic corp, please look into the legal basis behind detentions in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba. ( U.S. Gov't want's extraterritoriality for its personnel to protect them from Cuban law (heck, what we're doing at GITMO isn't even legal in the U.S.), but not for detainees being held there, e.g. no right to habeas corpus for them! And more complicated matters.)

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[maxume]

But your whole point is based on a notion that is so far out of wack with current international processes that it is meaningless.

I was pointing out that it is already the case that the Constitution is only helpful inside the United States(unfortunately, increasingly for citizens only), and that actions with international scope already have international consequences, and that those consequences are dealt with in a sane way, not by doing whatever China(or whoever) say. So even if a single country started making claims about what people in other countries could say about them(this is your scenario, correct?), there is nothing in the current system to suggest that it would be a significant burden upon travelers, because other governments would not, in general, blindly cooperate.

I mean, its pretty frightening to think that if you flew to China, they could execute you right after you got off the plane, but that isn't a good reason to worry about flying to China, because it is absurdly unlikely to happen.

So the potential international scope that the internet brings to our actions is certainly interesting, but because a large part of the reason that countries respect each others sovereignty is the expectation that theirs will be respected in turn, the implications of that scope really aren't all that different than the status quo, where you already need to give consideration to your safety and local laws when you travel.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Constitution is only helpful inside the United States(unfortunately, increasingly for citizens only)
Membership has its privileges.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[maxume]

Thanks for the pointer.

It gets awfully semantic though, whether you can be in another country and in sovereign territory of your own country at the same time, and whether extraterritoriality is granted by the host or an extension of sovereignty(and this gets slice up into de facto and de jour, and on and on).

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[AK Marc]

Are you sure about that? I've heard that there was an Australian citizen arrested in Australia and extradited to the US to face charges that were committed in Australia. I think it was for criminal file sharing, but I don't recall the specifics.

Re:This is actually kinda frightening...

[HexaByte]

Yes, I'm sure. It's a basic of International Law that you only have jurisdiction 1) In your own territory and/or 2) over your own citizens.

What exactly did this guy do?

[coffee_bouzu]

I've been searching around, and can't seem to find any details on what exactly this guy did other than sue Wikipedia. The only thing that I've really been able to gather so far is that he's suing Wikipedia because they "reported a story about his wife being favored by the city administration in public contracts".

From the mangled google translation of TFA, it looks like he's upset because even though someone else has already been convicted in the "Florence Parking" scandal, his wife is still being implicated on the wikipedia article.

What is the "Florence Parking" scandal? Does anyone else know more details about this?

From TFA (Google Translated):

FLORENCE - The mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, and the municipal assessor Graziano Cioni gave mandate to sue for defamation and slander the web encyclopedia Wikipedia.

The accused - The reason is explained in a note, it's because the "voice" of Leonardo Domenici site charge to the first citizen and his junta some measures and decisions, so it says, "have provoked criticism from citizenship "citing in particular" the trust of citizens in the parking company "Florence parking" for the cda are part of the wives of Domenici and Cioni.

The INVESTIGATION - In the note, please note that this "slander." Had already circulated in the past and that in 2004 the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Florence had opened an investigation which led to a conviction in a trial. The voice but (when reporting this story) has not changed and is still in the form contested by Domenici. Hence the decision to proceed with the lawsuit.

Obviously liable

[Tiger4]

But the Truth is VERY damaging! That must be clear to even the most innocent eyes. The Mayor's reputation will be irrevocably damaged if these truths are allowed to go uncontested in the public mind. Wikipedia is obviously liable for any lessening of his reputation in Florence when the people there know what he does behind the scenes.

Re:Wikipedia link?

[coffee_bouzu]

Probably because its mostly in Italian on the Italian language Wikipedia and even there, you have to go searching though the discussion page to find more information.

One of the things in question on the discussion page is:

It 'been criticized for giving all city streets contracted to the company "Florence Parking", which made payable most cars, the first free and free. This criticism is exacerbated by the voices of partnership on the board of the "Florence Parking" by the mayor and the wives of Graziano Cioni.

Non-robotic translation

[lbbros]

Notice, this was done in haste and may not be good English, but I hope it's better than an automated translation.

FIRENZE- Firenze's Mayor, Leonardo DOmenici, and local government member Graziano Cioni have given the order to sue for defamation the Wikipedia web encyclopedia (sic).

THE ACCUSATION - The reason, explained in a brief communication, is because in the "Leonardo Domenici" page on the site there are references to decisions made by the Mayor and his staff that, quoting, ''caused criticism from the citizens'', quoting in particular the award of a contract related to the management of the town's parking lots to the "Firenze Parking" company, of which Dominici and Cioni's wives have seats in the board of directors.

THE INQUIRY - The communication from the Mayor reminds that such a "defamation" had circulated in the past and that in 2004 the office of the public prosecutor had started an investigation, resulting in one indictment and a request for a trial. The Wikipedia page, however (at the time of writing) has not been modified and is still now present in the form challenged by Domenici. Hence the decision to sue for defamation and libel.

Re:Non-robotic translation

[Ropati]

Thank you for the excellent translation.

Re:Non-robotic translation

[ScrewMaster]

The Wikipedia page, however (at the time of writing) has not been modified and is still now present in the form challenged by Domenici.

So ... why didn't he just go change the page?

Barbara...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Nice work on drawing attention to the original problems also...it's always amusing how much political types don't get it.

...Striesand!!!

public parkings assignation

[bcrowell]

Personally, if I'm going to have an assignation, I'll typically do it in a romantic restauraunt, or maybe a motel. Public parking lots? I guess those Italians are pretty hot-blooded.

Re:public parkings assignation

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, "assignation" is one of those English words with a spelling very similar to an Italian word but a quite different meaning.
I think that "grant" would be a more accurate translation.

Elections are coming...

[m20o]

Italy will vote on april 13-14 and this will explain every activity of italian politicians until that date. In the end, they will return to sleep. Dominici - hey, isn't the former singer of Dream Theater? :)

How does this work ?

[billcopc]

So if I understand correctly, there is public information available on Wikipedia, that is neutral and objective. This factual information would lead most sane people to believe there is something fishy going on, without directly or indirectly suggesting it.

I CLEARLY am not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this case is anchored. By threatening legal action, it is almost confirming people's doubts. After all, honest politicians (*cough*) wouldn't be afraid of public information, would they ?

Aaaaaaa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Secret wiki-plot to conquer the world!

Florida, Korea, and Netherlands. Hm. That sure is a nice distribution to cover everyone.

Help Mirror Wikipedia

[themusicgod1]

This lawsuit probably won't succeed, but more will undoubtedly follow. I would suggest to either help me mirror wikipedia(admittedly that link is english and english-meta only), or you could alternatively get a complete fresh copy from them, and seed it on bittorrent.

Backfired fabolously.

[blind biker]

If they hadn't resorted to suing Wikipedia, I'd never hear about this corruption.

Now I know. And their lawsuit doesn't make me thing for a SECOND that they're not guilty. Quite the opposite.

Re:Backfired fabolously.

[lbbros]

Now, even if I'm Italian I don't really know about the matter related to the parkings in FIrenze, but aren't people jumping to the gun too soon? I mean, a suit against Wikipedia *is* a bad idea, but how come people think that Wikipedia is in the right and the mayor in the wrong? (Let me reiterate that suing Wikipedia was a bad idea in general) Personally I don't know. It may be right, or wrong, but I wouldn't trust Wikipedia to be in the right all the time. The information may be correct, lacking, or down right false and there's no way to verify it.

Here is the text at issue

[belmolis]

I went through the history of the English article and couldn't find anything about the parking issue, but I found it in the Italian wikipedia, here. It's just a brief item in a list of criticisms attributed to opposition parties:

l'affidamento dei parcheggi cittadini alla società "Firenze Parcheggi" del cui cda fanno parte le mogli di Domenici e dell'assessore Cioni

I don't see how this is actionable. It is merely a correct report of what other people have publicly said.

decentralisation

[wikinerd]

For my standards, Wikipedia is way too much centralised and easy to censor. There is a central not-for-profit foundation and a master database. That's wrong. There should be absolutely no organisation and the database should be replaced by a P2P-like system. I especially pay attention to the need to have no identifiable legal entity associated with Wikipedia. Some might say an organisation is needed to handle donations and payments for servers. I don't believe that, a community of people sharing a common culture can do the same much more efficiently. Centralisation creates targets for attack by enemies.

Anyone know what's going on with Barbara Bauer?

[julesh]

Barbara Bauer, described by SFWA as one of the twenty worst literary agents they know of, and who has a history of threatening people who are critical of her and getting ISPs to shut down web sites that are critical of her and claiming her name is her intellectual property and cannot be published without her permission, sued Wikimedia (among others) for repeating some of the above claims about a year ago. But I've heard nothing about the case since. Can anyone comment?

Re:MS TRANSLATOR MUCH BETTER!

[Sfing_ter]

You are correct, you are the right tool, and truly the only tool here.

Nice to meet you ...

[Sfing_ter]

My name is Jimmy Wales, meet my lawyers Fohk, Ewe & Dago.

Wrong Wiki

[Nom du Keyboard]

Shouldn't this be a WikiLeaks sort of document release situation?

Dio Mio!

[Gerhardius]

Che Palle!

Florence, Sue

[saibot834]

Florence sues Wikipedia? Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Parking scandal stings city administration

[andyr]

Accusations of fraud and deceit are flying around the construction project in Piazza Ghiberti. What was supposed to be a four-story underground parking lot will now be half the size, with just over half the capacity--for the same price, 10 million euro.

To date, eight people have been indicted for abuse of office and fraud, including former director of Firenze Parcheggi, Luigi Di Renzo, several project technicians, managers, architects, entrepreneurs and a municipal employee. A trial is scheduled for February 3, 2009.

Contractors halted the project after discovering massive underground rocks on the site. Too large to remove or destroy, the rocks were left, and the project was scaled back by two floors to yield 371 parking spots instead of the 624 originally planned.

Public prosecutor Giulio Monferini launched an investigation after police intercepted telephone conversations among those involved in the project. http://www.theflorentine.net/articles/article-view.asp?issuetocId=2908

Suing Wikipedia is like suing an orphanage.

[twocows]

They're both non-profit and both only exist to help people.