Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Italian Wikipedia May Shut Down Due To New Legislation

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the citation-not-needed-if-it-bugs-you dept.

Wikipedia 292

An anonymous reader writes "Proposed legislation under debate in Italy has Wikipedia warning of a shutdown for the Italian version of the site. They say the law would create 'a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.' They further explain. 'Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge — the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website. Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia can directly request the removal of such contents and its permanent replacement with a "corrected" version, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources.'"

cancel ×

292 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Berlusconi's a c**t... (5, Insightful)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 3 years ago | (#37608314)

There, I think I just got Slashdot shut down...

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608320)

You misspelled "cunt"

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (1, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 3 years ago | (#37608360)

Berlusconi's a cunt

FTFY: Il Duce's a cunt.

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 years ago | (#37608456)

Replace "In Soviet Russia..." with "In Italy..."

But it would be suitable to shut down the Italian Wikipedia - at least for a while - to specify that there is a problem. The big problem is "without any comment", not the change - since Wikipedia has a history with the old pages accessible for those that want to have the uncensored version.

As for Wikipedia, it also depends on where the servers are located.

From a political point of view this seems to be primarily aimed at protecting high-ranking politicians from criticism.

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (5, Insightful)

peppepz (1311345) | about 3 years ago | (#37608606)

The big problem is "without any comment", not the change

The problem is also in the "within 48 hours" part. You can't have a blog and go on vacation without risking *massive* fines when you're back if somebody got offended by what you wrote on it while you weren't checking your email.

In Italy, using anti-defamation laws to intimidate honest journalists is a national sport (that's why we have so few free reporters). This law will make this practice "a commodity", so that even normal citizens will think twice before saying something about anyone over the web (not only high-ranking politicians - it's especially low-ranking people, think e.g snake oil vendors, who resort to these means to defend their lawn).

Ford Pinto is the most awesome vehicle ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608736)

It has to be true, I read it in the Italian version of Wikipedia.

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37609028)

There was a very famous case in the UK where an associasion of homeopaths sued a journalist for libel after he wrote an article pointing out that their medicines are nothing but water and utterly ineffective.

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (2)

mcavic (2007672) | about 3 years ago | (#37608930)

As for Wikipedia, it also depends on where the servers are located.

Yes. This should be a no-brainer: just get an overseas host. Preferably here in the US, since I can't think of a more suitable country for free speech.

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (4, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 years ago | (#37608588)

Berlusconi è uno sticchiu

fixed it for you

Re:Berlusconi's a c**t... (1, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#37608812)

well, I am sure he'll be unpleasantly surprised to find out some people think he is a coat.

Politics (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 3 years ago | (#37608318)

So if an opposition politician puts in complaints about official websites then he gets to rewrite them? Or would it be limited to the websites of political parties as a means of political chaos? I think they just invented a new national sport.

Re:Politics (1)

MichaelKristopeit415 (2018852) | about 3 years ago | (#37608428)

it's called the mob, it isn't new.

Re:Politics (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 years ago | (#37608464)

New?

Count the number of Italian governments since '45. It's the most common national sport in Italy to have a chaotic political situation.

Re:Politics (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#37609096)

The Italians should learn a lesson from the Belgians; they've had no political chaos for about one and a half year now.

Re:Politics (4, Interesting)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 3 years ago | (#37609074)

Yeah I had the same thought. or even ... all the members of the notorious Anonymous could submit a constant stream of corrections they find offensive, and as soon as the site gets re-written, another member can claim that re-write is offensive. In fact, some industrious trolling could completely collapse the .it domain. And what about search results? Is there a bing or google search result that is offensive? People might be able to make constant, non-stop requests that search results be edited because the results were offensive.

I am overwhelmed at the potential for electronic mayhem that this law provides. There are so many ways, so many things. Its like, Italy is making the Internet Troll an official part of their government!

Problem solved (4, Interesting)

rcw-home (122017) | about 3 years ago | (#37608322)

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.

Re:Problem solved (4, Funny)

Mindflux0 (2447336) | about 3 years ago | (#37608430)

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.

I am offended by your mocking of our laws, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.

Sincerely, The Italian Parliament

Re:Problem solved (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 3 years ago | (#37608596)

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.

I am offended by your mocking of rainbows and icecream, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a while will be such a nicer happier place. With kittens and jelly beans for everyone.

Sincerely, The Italian Parliament.

Re:Problem solved (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#37609106)

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.

I'm offended by that!
Please apply the following correction within 48 hours:

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.

Re:Problem solved (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37608436)

It's Italy, so there's a very good chance that Berlusconi's media empire will have some sort of immunity or loophole available to it.

Re:Problem solved (1)

MichaelKristopeit420 (2018880) | about 3 years ago | (#37608442)

more like new problem created... the correction to the correction will also be reverted.

waste some more time, moron.

Re:Problem solved (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about 3 years ago | (#37608478)

If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.

Not quite that simple to get around. It has to be something about you that you find offensive. It doesn't matter if you find something written about someone else offensive (at least as far as this law is concerned anyway).

Re:Problem solved (3)

rcw-home (122017) | about 3 years ago | (#37608522)

Not quite that simple to get around. It has to be something about you that you find offensive.

It's possible something was lost in the Wikipedia translation, but their wording was "any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image", not "about the applicant". The sky is the limit.

Re:Problem solved (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | about 3 years ago | (#37608758)

"I saw this person on the street once. Are you saying that I once saw someone who didn't sniff coke off a dead hooker? Outraged, I am!"

Re:Problem solved (2)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 years ago | (#37608534)

I find it offensive that you have stated I might find something offensive. Obviously, "you" refers specifically to me, and therefore you must state that I cannot be offended, or I will continue to be offended.

Offensively yours,

Me

Re:Problem solved (2)

mgiuca (1040724) | about 3 years ago | (#37608636)

So basically, if you take that idea to its logical conclusion, you would have.... Wikipedia?

What's the problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608324)

Obviously wikipedia already has that feature - the offended person simply needs to press the 'edit' button and type in the objections and corrections. Repeat as necessary, after anyone else makes new versions of the page concerned.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608710)

No, because wikipedia has other features like "protected page" and "banning your ass" -- not to mention the history, which is uneditable by normal users, and thus not correctable.

Inifinite loop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608330)

Can I again request for the corrected version to be taken down claiming it hurts me while the other party does the same ad-infinitum? Where does the buck stop?

Re:Inifinite loop (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 3 years ago | (#37608614)

Can I again request for the corrected version to be taken down claiming it hurts me while the other party does the same ad-infinitum? Where does the buck stop?

Fool of a Took! This is about job creation. Everyone knows that the Italian job market needs a bit of a kick-a-long. This makes highly skilled IT positions as people continue to update information. The buck stops with them, silly billy!

I am offended by that law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608336)

I demand it be removed and "corrected" within 48 hours.

Secret trick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608348)

I know of a way to change the contents of a Wikipedia article... but don't tell the Italians!

What's the problem? (2)

hom3chuk (977560) | about 3 years ago | (#37608350)

You know you can host websites not in Italia only, don't you?

Re:What's the problem? (3, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | about 3 years ago | (#37608554)

First I modded this up, now I'm back to post.

Seriously - don't host in Italy, and who cares?

Do you think the Wikipedia page on North Korea confoms to the laws of North Korea? The wikipedia article itself, in the span of two sentences, shows that it's not a legal article there:

In its 2010 report, Reporters Without Borders ranked the freedom of the press in North Korea as 177th out of 178, above only that of Eritrea.[136] Only news that favors the regime is permitted...

I don't hear anyone threatening to pull it down.

The law itself is abysmal, but there's no reason for it to affect Wikipedia. It strikes me that in making this claim, Wikipedia is taking up a political fight. Wikipedia is not in any danger from the law, they're theatrically threatening to pull out, despite being unaffected, in order to draw attention to this. I'm against this abhorrent and ridiculous law, but I'm not in favor of Wikipedia making exaggerated claims and throwing its weight around on political issues.

Re:What's the problem? (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 3 years ago | (#37608754)

Seriously - don't host in Italy, and who cares?

Perhaps Italians who have to live in Italy, just might be subject to Italian no matter where they hosts and are probably strongly represented in the group of people who administrate Italian Wikipedia??

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Mhtsos (586325) | about 3 years ago | (#37608836)

If that were the case people in Italy administering or writing on the English version of Wikipedia would be faced with the same problem... and you would be able to keep supporting Italian Wikipedia with contributors from outside Italy.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608774)

ITALIAN Wikipedia (it.wikipedia.org), not ALL of Wikipedia.

Why are countries like this... (5, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | about 3 years ago | (#37608354)

...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

Re:Why are countries like this... (5, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37608444)

This is definitely an issue, but their justice system is a joke and their politicians have immunity from prosecution IIRC. As long as those facts remain facts there is little hope of Italy joining the modern world. I mean hell, they still try people in absentia and expect to extradite the convicted afterwards.

Re:Why are countries like this... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#37608582)

...allowed in the European Union?

They may not be for much longer. Germany and France might decide that it's not worth bailing out Greece and Italy.

Re:Why are countries like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37609002)

The EU isn't the Euro

Re:Why are countries like this... (5, Insightful)

hydrofix (1253498) | about 3 years ago | (#37608728)

...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

Very good question. I have been worried about the situation in Italy for long. The country is ruled by a media-controlling Prime Minister, while the parliament is paralyzed by deep corruption, reckless spending and robbing the tax money. And, I mean really, really unbelievable stuff, like the mayor of a small province earning more than the President of the United States [dailymail.co.uk] .

I think EU is essentially in the cross-roads of three alternative paths:

  1. Keep going on like this, from crisis to crisis, with disparity in levels of democracy and wealth between different parts of the Union.
  2. Turn in to a Federation, subordinating national parliaments to one Federal Parliament in Brussels.
  3. Split into two or more sub-Unions (Corrupt South, Torn East and Prosperous North).

I feel like the second path is the only feasible way to proceed. First option means ever-continuing disparity within the Union, which will stall its political and economic development forever. Third option is a solution, but not a very constructive one. It would mean a new divide in Europe, akin to the times of the Cold War, and a step back of over seven decades politically.

If EU became a Federation with a corpus of Federal Law, and national legislation became subject to repeal by Federal courts, it would truly make EU a uniform, legally homogenous area, where all EU citizens and businesses would really have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities from the shores of Black Sea in Romania to the Atlantic cliffs in Ireland, and from the tip of Gibraltar in Iberia to the rural fells of Lapland. Doing business and living in Europe would become ever more easier, as human rights would be universally respected.

Maybe the current crisis will have only one possible outcome: the establishment of the Federal Government of the European Union.

Re:Why are countries like this... (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 3 years ago | (#37608820)

...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.

Because the EU is almost entirely a economic union, and hasn't been given authority in the general political, judicial or social areas.

Re:Why are countries like this... (2)

julesh (229690) | about 3 years ago | (#37608846)

Unfortunately for the rest of us, Italy is a member for a very solid reason: they were one of the founder members of the EEC. It's hard to justify kicking them out of an organisation that was founded by the Treaty of Rome.

Re:Why are countries like this... (1)

Kensai7 (1005287) | about 3 years ago | (#37608872)

Well said. The EU should protect its members more than the national governments. I don't trust either completely, but one checking the other is good.

Re:Why are countries like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37609062)

Because this is in the spirit of the European Union. Don't think that basic rights, justice and democracy are important values in the EU. The only aim of that lobbycraty is to pull money from the people.

What's happening (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 3 years ago | (#37608358)

First, Berlusconi and his cronies control the traditional media in Italy. Making something difficult for their competitors is in their direct financial interest. This also works well because a major reason they can stay in power are elderly individuals who don't understand and are scared by all this new-fangled technology. At this point, Berlusconi is clearly one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians ever in Italy. This whole thing would be funny if not for the fact that this womanizing shmuck is in charge of one of the largest economies in Europe during an ongoing financial crisis. It seems to me that this sort of thing might actually be enough for the sane Italians to wake up and realize how fucked up their government is. Th But so far, they've had a lot of crazy crap and haven't yet done so, and Wikipedia itself is not nearly as popular in Italy as it is in some other languages. (For example, the German Wikipedia is extremely popular in the German speaking world.) So I'm pessimistic.

Re:What's happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608598)

Berlusconi is clearly one of the most corrupt and incompetent politicians ever in Italy.

So what you're saying is that doing whatever the fuck you want (even very illegal stuff like fucking minors) for fun and profit during decades while nobody can stop you is incompetency? I fear what he'd be like if he were competent.

Re:What's happening (2)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 years ago | (#37608630)

Given how corrupt Italian politics are, what makes you think voting will actually change anything, regardless of what the actual vote results are?

Re:What's happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608720)

All these events, from California stopping kids from operating Lemonade Stands to Journalists being dragged through court systems because they ask question someones choice of Race Identification in Australia to Belgium Censoring DNS Servers.

See a pattern here?

The west is gggaaawwwnnn!

Good... (2)

jheath314 (916607) | about 3 years ago | (#37608362)

I hope they make good on this threat. Eventually citizens will take a hard look at their leaders when they can no longer have nice things.

Re:Good... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608842)

Italy has been electing Berlusconi since 1994. Losing the Italian Wikipedia doesn't even register as a speedbump in the ongoing disaster that Italians refuse to take personal responsibility for.

Re:Good... (1)

SEE (7681) | about 3 years ago | (#37608896)

They'll look hard, sure. And then what?

Re:Good... (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | about 3 years ago | (#37608922)

Sure, almost like they do in our own country. Or England. Or China, I hear they're rife with infringes upon basic liberty.

Italians only in italy? (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 3 years ago | (#37608364)

... but the risk is that soon we will be forced to actually delete it.

Why does a language section of Wikipedia have to close down because of a country? Aren't there enough Italian speaking people outside Italy to matter? Why not just block visitors from Italy (meaning: show them the message that it's the fault of that law that Wikipedia can't work in Italy)?
Maybe some Italian article would be useful to me even though I'm not Italian nor speak Italian (there are translators). Why does everyone else have to suffer?

Re:Italians only in italy? (3, Insightful)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 3 years ago | (#37608454)

To draw the attention to the problem. Trust me, noone cares about the rights untill it comes back to them and bites them in the back soft spot. When most of italians are unable to browse wikipedia and see a disclaimer that due to their laws it is impossible to operate in that country — then it's more likely that this law will be scrapped.

Re:Italians only in italy? (1)

Mindflux0 (2447336) | about 3 years ago | (#37608500)

That's a good point. I suppose Italy is the only country with Italian as it's primary language (excluding city-states) but how many people outside of Italy speak Italian?

Also, how many people in Italy use the English Wikipedia where they won't even notice this?

Seems like it would make a lot more sense to block all of Wikipedia from Italy. Maybe Wikipedia wanted more worldwide attention but they could have gotten that with a banner or splash page for everywhere.

On the other hand just taking down the Italian site was probably a lot easier than any of the alternatives.

Re:Italians only in italy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608986)

You can easily make a mirror site of Wikipedia using their own dumps. By pulling this stunt they will either force the creation of another site that can serve the Italian Wikipedia censorship free that can evade the technical and legal issues with the law or cause the law to be reverted. By just blocking Italian users they would just split the user base in two.

EU Charter (1)

cmv1087 (2426970) | about 3 years ago | (#37608368)

I'm pretty certain that doing this would violate the free speech protections in the European Union's charter and related laws, no? While I haven't read it, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something in the Italian constitution about it, considering the idea of free speech goes back centuries.

Re:EU Charter (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37608458)

It's not as bad as the laws in various parts of Europe that send people to prison for various speech crimes. Germany has it's holocaust denial penalty, and IIRC the UK just sent somebody to prison for trolling.

If those things are permissable under the EU's charter, then I'm not sure I see how this would be any more egregious of a violation.

Re:EU Charter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608524)

That would be that a) Holocaust denial is not Free Speech and b) Trolling is not Free Speech either.

Re:EU Charter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608622)

I don't like your opinion that the holocaust didn't happen. I deem the holocaust as bad. Therefore, for stating your opinion, you must be punished! Otherwise, there'll be another holocaust (not the fault of the idiots who listen to you at all)!

Great law. 10/10
Paranoia to the max!

Re:EU Charter (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 3 years ago | (#37608642)

Actually they are. Otherwise we are risking to end up with narrowing "free speech" to government approved list of statements.

Re:EU Charter (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 3 years ago | (#37608684)

That's great! Now we just need to amend the definition such that "Criticizing the Party" and "Drawing a Picture of Mohammad" aren't Free Speech, and we'll have converted China and Iran to Western Democracy!

Oh, the things you can accomplish by dicking around with definitions. Next I'm going to redefine billionaire and be rich!

Re:EU Charter (0)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37608734)

What!?!

Both are Free Speech. Holocaust denial I can halfway meet them on, since it is a real emotional issue for Germans. It is still a basic human right for some dumbass to say he did not believe it happened. If people can deny the Earth is round, let them be delusional all they want and say what they want.

Trolling is absolutely Free Speech. I am reminded of Ghost Busters where it is said it is every New Yorker's God given right to be an asshole. It is most certainly Free Speech.

This thing in Italy is much less egregious of a violation of Free Speech because it (apparently) imposes no penalty on the poster at all. It just gives the last word to whoever the statement is about by law. It's stupid and bullshit for sure, but 1/1000th of the basic human rights violation of the two you mentioned.

It blows my mind that you would say it is not Free Speech. Of course it is. You might as well have said the Sun is going to come up purple tomorrow.

Re:EU Charter (1)

julesh (229690) | about 3 years ago | (#37608954)

Trolling is absolutely Free Speech.

Perhaps you are unaware of the details of the trolling in question, which was (IALTB) graphically obscene descriptions of the sexual acts the troll wanted to perform on the victims' dead relatives' corpses. Sending unsolicited obscene messages has long been held to not be protected by free speech laws, both in the EU and the US, and I can't say as I see any reason to disagree with this.

Sure, be an asshole if you want, but don't be obscene.

Re:EU Charter (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#37609164)

I am reminded of Ghost Busters where it is said it is every New Yorker's God given right to be an asshole. It is most certainly Free Speech.

Coincidentally, the troll in this case broke quite a few of the ten commandments or whatever equivalent your preferred god has.
Whether it's a legal right can be debated, but it most certainly isn't a god given right.

Re:EU Charter (4, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | about 3 years ago | (#37608924)

IIRC the UK just sent somebody to prison for trolling

To suggest it was simply for trolling is somewhat understating the matter. While I agree that he shouldn't have gone to prison, we are talking about an extended and targetted campaign of obscene harrassment against individuals who had done nothing at all to the perpetrator. 18 weeks in prison (of which he will only serve 9 unless he reoffends after leaving) seems justifiable. OTOH, as the offence is simply a symptom of the guy's Asperger's syndrome, he probably shouldn't have been punished for it at all.

It is a long-held belief that freedom of speech extends only as far as it does not cause harm to others, which is acknowledged both in the US and here in Europe. Harrassment causes harm, and therefore should not be permitted under the banner of freedom of speech. In the US, this is the relevant statute he could have been prosecuted under [cornell.edu] , and would have been eligible for a much longer prison sentence had he been convicted.

Holocaust denial, OTOH, is an entirely different matter, and I can see no justification at all in laws that prevent it.

Berlusconi yay! (1)

euyis (1521257) | about 3 years ago | (#37608386)

Seriously why these idiots get elected again and again?

Re:Berlusconi yay! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608690)

Seriously why these idiots get elected again and again?

For the same reasons the fucking idiots in the US congress get elected again and again.

How is this different? (1)

cgenman (325138) | about 3 years ago | (#37608390)

So... Italian law might allow anyone to rewrite history on Wikipedia. How is that significantly different than how Wikipedia already functions? If someone is offended by something on Wikipedia, they can submitedit the article. And within 48 hours (seconds actually) it will be present without comment. And then 10 seconds later, someone else will have corrected it back to the truth.

Where in the law does it say the edit has to stay up?

Re:How is this different? (2)

norpy (1277318) | about 3 years ago | (#37608408)

When was the last time you tried to edit wikipedia?

It's pretty much read-only at this point.

Re:How is this different? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37608462)

I'm pretty sure that it's only open for deletions and posting [citation needed] at this point. By this time next year they should have the entire Wikipedia deleted.

Re:How is this different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608528)

I'm pretty sure that it's only open for deletions and posting [citation needed] at this point. By this time next year they should have the entire Wikipedia deleted.

[citation needed]

Re:How is this different? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37609012)

Unless you take a minute to come up with a username and email address to give them...

Re:How is this different? (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 3 years ago | (#37608446)

It just means that the never-ending back and forth with regards to notability, sources and other policy will be legally protected, and impossible to end. Wikipedia couldn't function as an entity if the circlejerk of administrators and reach-around editors couldn't force through their interpretation of policy du jour.

Re:How is this different? (1)

julesh (229690) | about 3 years ago | (#37609026)

I think it can be taken as read that if the law requires something to be published, the law requires it to remain published. You can't circumvent it by saying "the correction was there for 30 seconds, it's just somebody changed it." It absolutely will have to remain.

Unfortunately, the law being discussed at the moment simply extends an obligation present in an older law to all Internet sites (it previously only applied to newspsapers). I can't find any detail of the older law, and most of the discussion of the new law revolves around the 12,500 euro fine for not complying within 48 hours.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608402)

with a sexist damn near rapist leader, ignorant "law" based on guesses and feelings, with people so stupid to believe anything they are told... fuck off Iran, shit I mean Italy

Ban Italy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608434)

Maybe it's time we just kicked Italy off of the internet? They clearly aren't mature enough to handle it.

Historical revisionism, here we come... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 3 years ago | (#37608438)

Not very many steps to "That casts my ancestors in a bad light, and so casts me in a bad light. I am offended."

Re:Historical revisionism, here we come... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37608506)

"Here we come"? Man, we've been here for... well... a few millenia at least.

Re:Historical revisionism, here we come... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 3 years ago | (#37608666)

lollll...but not at the speed of the 'net...

Re:Historical revisionism, here we come... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608818)

What are you doing on slashdot?

Wait wait (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37608460)

We've had this shit before with Google and Youtube. Italy's Wikipedia doesn't need to be hosted in Italy. They can block it for a while and throw a tantrum, but will come to their senses eventually. If it comes to it, the EU could start an enquiry for violation of its charter; it seems likely free speech is somewhere in there.

Re:Wait wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37609108)

Wikipedia isn't hosted in Italy. That would be silly.

Italian scandals (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 3 years ago | (#37608486)

Italian politicians pop up in the scandals pretty often. I guess they're tired of seeing themselves all over the 'net.

Easy, easy workaround. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608566)

Have wikipedia.it redirect to an Italian version hosted on a different domain. Italy's laws do not extend to other countries.

Wikipedia, of all things? (2)

Alex Belits (437) | about 3 years ago | (#37608602)

I would expect that Wikipedia would be THE ONLY SITE that will be able to comply with this.

Re:Wikipedia, of all things? (1)

Herve5 (879674) | about 3 years ago | (#37608952)

Exactly!
All they need to do is quote the new law's text on their first page, and state that anyone offended just can reedit the text, *as a compliance to the law*!

Why only the Italian version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608668)

Nowhere in the proposed law it is limited to Italian language content. The whole world will be required to obey, while only Italian residents can be forced to do so.

Let 'em shut down then. (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 years ago | (#37608784)

And it's not like Wikipedia, nor its "editors" are exactly "neutral" either.

Reporters without Borders (3, Informative)

damburger (981828) | about 3 years ago | (#37608788)

Italy is just maintaining its hard earned reputation as one of the worst place in the EU to be a journalist:

http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/carte-2011.pdf

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

I'm offended (1)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 3 years ago | (#37608832)

by the notion that such a law could EVER be misused.

Why is Berlisconi still in power anyway? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37608852)

Do the Italians actually LIKE this guy? Are there no alternatives to vote for? Are the alternatives worse?

Re:Why is Berlisconi still in power anyway? (3, Insightful)

NetMassimo (1490357) | about 3 years ago | (#37609140)

In 2006 Italians were already sick and tired of Berlusconi. The left-wing coalition were already planning a glorious victory, the problem is that it's a coalition formed basically by all politicians screwed by Berlusconi that inclusdes from catholics to communists, people who have in common little more than thair hatred for Berlusconi. Even before the election they were fighting for the best offices in the coming government scaring many people. Eventually they won anyway but they spent two years just bickering among them because they all had different agendas. The highest achievement of that left-wing government was trying to solve prisons overcrowding releasing thousands of petty criminals, too bad a lot of them got back in jail for new crimes within a few months. After two years the left-wing coalition had to give up because they were incapable of governing and a new anticipated election was held. People were so disgusted that they voted Berlusconi again just because he's the devil you know! Italy is still carrying the legacy of the Cold War, when vote was ideological, the country was a battleground for various terrorist groups and corruption was tollerated because there were worse things to think about. It's taking too long for Italy and particularly for Italian politicans to understand that today a lot of people can switch their votes to and fro the two coalitions and both of them seem to still showing how inadequate they are to govern a modern country.

Fuck Around With Silly Laws (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 years ago | (#37608920)

Embarrass them. Replace the name with silly random words, like: "Smoofa moved to Proggville in 2005 to record her first album, "I Smoked Fluug While Loving You"...

Why Close Where You Ain't Hosted? (1)

cmholm (69081) | about 3 years ago | (#37609084)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it.wikipedia.org isn't hosted in Italy [wikimedia.org] . Ergo, the authorities aren't in a position to fine or arrest anyone posting "defamatory" material... unless an offending editor resident in Italy drops a bit too much identifying material on their personal page. Seems like more of a PITA than a deal breaker.

easy fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37609134)

just add an "edit" button, so they can fix the information themselves

What exactly does it say? (3, Funny)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 3 years ago | (#37609146)

In Germany, it has always been the law that if a newspaper publishes something about you that you think isn't true, they have to publish what you say. So in the next edition you would read something like "We wrote xxx. Mr. X complained about this, and we are required by law to tell you that he claims yyy. This is not necessarily the truth. ".

The best one I ever read was this followed by "we published the article because we received a declaration under oath that xxx is true. We now also received a declaration under oath that xxx is false. We don't know which one, but we know someone lied under oath and passed both statements to the police."

It really depends on what exactly this law says. Best case Wikipedia adds a button where any person who feels offended can post what they claim is the truth, without modifying the article.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?