By Provisional Order of the First Instance Court of Athens the author and manager of Wikipedia Diu is ordered to delete information from his curriculum vitae Theodore Katsaneva in Wikipedia. This Provisional Order is a precedent that may, besides inappropriate for the applicant, also be dangerous to the way in which freedom of speech is exercised in our country, with the surprise and particular concern of the Free Software Company / Open Source Software .
The UER / LAC issued a notice on the timing of the "anti-common sense" lawsuit.
As he specifies, it is a Provisional Order rather than a court order and thus we have neither a reasoning nor produce any form of binding res judicata.
Its time of treatment
EEL/LAK about 2 years ago received a document of extrajudicial protest from Mr. Katsaneva Theodoros in which he requested to be deletion part of the article posted on "Wikipedia" for him considering that EEL/LAK is responsible and represents the editors and administrators of Wikipedia as well as being involved in the drafting of its content. Then, and after the VET / LAC informed in writing that he can not meet the demands of the out-of-court complaint as well does not represent Wikipedia, both the Greek version of this and any other, and in no way overseeing its administrators or editors, nor does it care for the content posted on it, Mr. Katsanevas has proceeded against the ULL / LAK and the author who has posted this article also filed an application for interim measures a few days ago, as well as a request for a Temporary Order that was handed down to 13.02.14.
Diu was not relieved
The decision was void for the EWC / LAC but not for the Wikipedia editor who, according to the decision, is required to temporarily delete from the Wikipedia entry in the CV of Mr. Katsaneva until the debate on insurance measures set for 11.03.2014.
Rejection of the Temporary Order against VTE / LAC is entirely reasonable as VET / LAC promotes and supports open content in general (for example, see mycontent http://mycontent.ellak.gr/), but also specifically the action of the Greek Wikipedia, but without claiming or being in any way a representative of Wikimedia Foundation in Greece. EEL/LAK is the equivalent of an environmental one organizations, such as e.g. Greenpeace or WWF, which can e.g. to support the cultivation of organic products, but does not produce these products itself, nor can it be sued in the event that someone e.g. claims to have some health problem from consuming such a product.
Why freedom of speech is threatened
The non-profit organization of dozens of Greek universities, research centers and technology institutions expresses its concern about the acceptance of Katsaneva's request against the author of Wikipedia, and in particular explains:
"The acceptance of the request against the author of Wikipedia can only concern us deeply, both as an organization that aims to disseminate and enhance open knowledge in every way, especially through Wikipedia, and as citizens in relation to with what similar decisions about freedom of speech can mean ".
The author of Wikipedia has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that he follows the three pillars of Wikipedia throughout the period since the publication of the relevant entry so far:
That is, what he writes
(a) obey the principle neutral viewing angle, represent all opinions fairly and equally and do not discriminate
(Β) the entry can be verified by published sources and
(c) the entry is not an original research, but it reproduces existing published sources.
It is important to emphasize that Wikipedia essentially controls itself through a decentralized control system of these three principles. This is easily and effortlessly revealed by the relevant discussion on the relevant theme of Theodore Katsaneva that is publicly available and one can see its evolution until the filing of the lawsuit and the discussion that has been opened in relation to its development treatment. Additionally, these principles are ensured through the existence of a wikipedia system of administrators and bureaucrats who are users of Wikipedia who have been given increased rights to protect the content and facilitate the operation of Wikipedia.
What is the attitude of the Wikimedia Foundation in Diu's case
You can read it Wikimedia Foundation's submission on the case against Diu. Tech.in.gr contacted the Wikimedia Foundation for the issue. Among other things, we asked to know what Wikipedia's policy provides for references to press articles for which there are convicted court judgments on defamation.
Asav Bartov replies to Anthia Panagiotaki that, if it is a reliable source, however, following a request from the Justice, the publication has been withdrawn as a defamatory, then the relevant reference to the Wikipedia entry should be deleted. However, if the article has not been withdrawn, there is no reason not to refer to it, even if a legal action is pending. It is noted that Mr. Kacaneva's resume quotes the questioning of the covenant with the disputed denunciations and the conviction of the journalist for slanderous defamation. The referrals of the entry are in a number of newspapers as well as in Greek news agencies.
As far as Wikimedia Foundation support is concerned, it is noted that the authors are responsible for what they are writing on Wikipedia and do not have to submit lobbies. But if they contribute well in good faith, according to the content policy of the encyclopedia, with references to trusted sources and especially for persons in life, then if they are attacked the Foundation can also support them in court.
It is impossible to apply the court's interim injunction
The most interesting point, however, is what followed the interim order, which was more than expected for anyone who has a basic understanding of how wikipedia works:
- Diu followed the interim order and removed the relevant references from the relevant entry (see relevant page). Because even other users made changes to the entry as opposed to the decision, Diu brought it back to 10's court order on the same day.
- because that way has largely violated the rule of three restores, which is the rule that does not allow a user to retrieve content for more than three times in 24 hours, as expected under Wikipedia rules, imposed on him blocking changes for three days. (Read about Rule three resets and the Wikipedia Block)
- the entry not only returned to its original state, i.e. the state it was in before the Diu changes (according to the court's decision), but in addition, due to the publicity the case has received,” entries have already been created in his name, on Wikipedia in English, Catalan, Polish etc, even in language Saha spoken in the eponymous Autonomous Republic in the Russian Federation in Siberia (Yakutia), where the entry mentions almost only the phrase in question and his dispute with the Greek user with almost no mention of his political or academic career.” (Watch this Theodoros Katatsanevas in English, in the Catalan, in Polish,in the language Shah)
It is therefore a decision that is virtually impossible to implement. Even when Diu complies with it, someone else "Diu" in Poland, Catalonia or somewhere else will be able to change the content as long as it follows the Wikipedia rules.
The most essential dimension of the expression "we are all Diu":
"Wikipedia's rules are much stricter and directly applicable than those of classical justice. They are implemented decentralized and have direct results. For these reasons, they are preferable to the classical practice of lawsuits and lawsuits, "writes VET / LAC.
The unfortunate thing about this decision is not that it simply contradicts Wikipedia's content policy (neutrality, verifiability, not original research) internationally. It is paving the way for a pipeline industry to anyone who is "unhappy" with the relevant entry posted on Wikipedia and while relying on sources, the content of which is available on the internet, to take legal action against any user who has written the article and has used these sources and not against the original sources on which the entry is based.
With this decision, freedom of expression and the defense of knowledge and freedom of information are being directly pursued, and Wikipedia and its authors are encouraged to censor, who volunteer to participate in a worldwide collaborative effort to have the Greek version of Wikipedia and be maintained at a high level.
The UER / LAC, as it formulated its position in the court, formulates it publicly and continues to support freedom of speech, digital commons and open content, but above all the common sense that we hope and believe we will come back with future decisions of the Greek courts.
What is the VET / LAC?
The non-profit Free Software Company / Open Source Software (http://eellak.gr/, VET / LAK) was founded in 2008 by 25 Universities, Research Centers and Technological Institutes. The main purpose of VET / LAC is to contribute to the promotion and development of Free Software, Open Content and Open Architecture Technologies in the field of education, public sector and business in Greece, while at the same time aspiring to become a knowledge center and platform for dialogue for open technologies. It also works with Creative Commons and is a founding member COMMUNIA.
