
German court rules in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation - edward
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/24/victory-germany-court-ruling/
======
ucaetano
Good to see a balancing decision like this coming from Europe in general, and
Germany in particular.

~~~
nqzero
given the prevalence of age discrimination, it's disappointing that wikimedia
didn't take the birth year down voluntarily

yes, the data's available from other sources, but a prospective employer might
not see that until after evaluating some other aspects of her work, and end up
hiring her in a situation in which they wouldn't if they found her age
immediately

for that matter, i find wikimedia's prominent display of age for people in
general to be a bit too forceful. is that really such a defining
characteristic of a living person that it belongs in the highlight box ?

~~~
schoen
A lot of newspapers in the U.S. will print the age of the subject of a story
or interview as a standard part of their style.

[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+25%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+25%22)
[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+26%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+26%22)
[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+27%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+27%22)
[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+28%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+28%22)
[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+29%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+29%22)
[https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+30%22](https://www.google.com/#q=%22said+smith%2C+30%22)

~~~
edward
Nice demo. You could optimize it down to a single link:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="said+smith%2C+18..75"](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="said+smith%2C+18..75")

~~~
schoen
Cool, thanks for the tip!

------
avar
What if they had won? What bearing does suing the Wikimedia Foundation, a US
entity, for material published in the US under US publishing laws?

The German Wikipedia is published and maintained by a US entity, there's a
local German Wikimedia chapter but it's not the publisher of the German
Wikipedia. The article says that they sued the US entity (the Wikimedia
Foundation Inc., not Wikimedia Deutschland), but doesn't explain this issue.

~~~
pluma
Same thing that happens to any other service provider: they might lose the
ability to do business in Germany or even get blocked if they knowingly
continue violating German law.

Granted, for Wikimedia there would be less at stake than for, say, Facebook,
but it should be obvious why an organization offering a localized service
might be interested in staying within the bounds of the laws of whatever
locale they are targeting.

I doubt Wikimedia Deutschland would fare well if their US-based parent
organisation disregarded rulings of German courts, especially when it comes to
protecting the privacy of German citizens.

Compare it to, say, US courts suing a EU or Chinese company. Sure, they don't
necessarily have any means to enforce the ruling against the foreign company
but it would likely be in the company's best interests to follow the ruling if
they want to continue providing their services in the US.

~~~
avar

        > I doubt Wikimedia Deutschland would fare well
        > if their US-based parent organisation disregarded
        > rulings of German courts.
    

Well, this has always been the interesting case with these lawsuits against
Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The local chapters do not in any way run their respective
language editions. After all, why would the Wikimedia Germany and not the
Austria or Switzerland chapter run the German Wikipedia?

Even if the heat was turned up on Wikimedia Deutschland as a result of
something like this they'd be unable to dictate what goes into their language
editions of Wikipedia. The local chapters simply have nothing to do with the
editorial policy.

There are plenty of German speakers who edit Wikipedia who live outside of
Germany, some even live in the U.S. Is a German court ruling going to decide
whether a German speaker living in the U.S. can insert factual information
into a U.S.-hosted encyclopedia article about some subject pertinent to
Germany?

The entire legal framework around this sort of thing is based on the
assumption of locally published paper media, and it's really interesting to
see how these cases are treated in the Internet age where it's not a case of
local publishing in your country, but your citizens fetching foreign-published
information over international boundaries.

So I'm genuinely curious to know what their standing in the case was
considered to be.

~~~
matt4077
There are certain legal doctrines (and treaties) regarding standing. I don't
know about the situation between Germany/the EU vis-a-vis the US, but, as an
example, the EU rules specify that in almost all cases consumers get to sue /
can only be sued at their place of residence (unless they consent to a
different venue).

This is to ensure a somewhat level playing field, since the consumer is
usually the weaker party. I would argue that, even though it's not a consumer
vs. company lawsuit the situation is comparable and it's fair to empower her
with the choice of venue. I also don't see it as an unreasonable burden to
consider the legal situation in Germany when you're publishing information
about a German citizen, in German. This isn't some Pakistani court imposing
sharia law on HBO because people could possibly watch it in Karachi if they
have the right VPN.

The alternative interpretation of some of these comments is that basically no
law should apply to the internet. Even though I have some sympathy for the
techno-anarcho mindset (fuck that stupid cookie regulation!), I would argue
that if anything that happens online has any power, that power requires checks
that go beyond 'might is right'. And even acknowledging all their faults, I
haven't come across a better method than a democratically legitimated court of
law.

(Having said all that: she lost, the system is working).

------
walshemj
The Public may be "interested" in Her age but is it in the public interest? -
the two are not the same.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
If you read the whole article and the portions of the ruling that it provides,
you'd see that the court specifically addresses this. She has a widely known
career producing mass commercial public works (documentaries) and they note
that it is in the public interest to know what was produced at what age.

~~~
walshemj
Why? what is the public interest here? I don't need to know George Lucas's age
when he made star wars.

~~~
avar
I'm happy that we don't use your personal desire for ignorance as a guide when
forming public policy.

The point of these sorts of laws "public persona" laws is not that we all
desperately need to know trivia like George Clooney's natural hair color or
what year Evelyn Schels was born, but rather that when you insert yourself
into the public sphere you're free game for the public press because it's in
the public's interest do know who you are and what you represent.

The press is one of the fundamental pillars of any functioning democracy, and
if you can't write a basic article about some public personality without
mentioning how old they are or other pertinent personal attributes without
fear of legal retribution you've enacted a major barrier to public discourse.

~~~
walshemj
You should not throw stones as you don't seem to grasp the deference between
things the public is interested in and things in the public interest.

Some of the public are interested in up skirt shots of pop starlets you see
the difference here?

~~~
scrollaway
Rich coming from you, a lesson on seeing the differences - when you yourself
don't see the difference between skirt shots and birth years.

~~~
walshemj
Err are you not a native English speaker "in the public interest" and "public
interest" are very different things legally and socially.

You might want to look up what an inverse metaphor is before jumping in with
both feet

------
franciscop
I did not see that comming. Mainly from Wikimedia, since the tone is like
they've won a war against Evil Corp for freedom when it looks like they just
screw with this person's life. Yes, wikimedia might have the legal rights to
do this, but as the awesome community and organization they are this feels
completely odd.

~~~
MichaelApproved
I don't see how they are screwing with her life. She, herself, published the
info in a book.

> _The court recognized that a birth year made accessible by the Claimant
> herself through publicly available sources such as a book “would not remain
> limited to a small circle of people … but be accessible to a circle of users
> unlimited in theory._ ”

~~~
pluma
This. The court ruled against her because she demanded information she herself
had previously made available to the general public to be removed based on
privacy concerns.

While I would maintain that "available to the general public" doesn't equal
"available to everyone" (info on the web is more likely widely available than
info in a print book) I agree with the court in that her claim against
Wikimedia is invalid in this case.

