×

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!

German Wikipedia Threatened w/ Injunction

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the common-problem-in-germany-i-bet dept.

The Internet 318

TheEagleCD writes "Wikipedia.de, the German version of the popular Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is currently closed due to a German court order. A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." As I write this the site is back up, as is the tron entry that caused the whole mess. However it does appear that the entire domain was briefly shut down over one entry.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

318 comments

Verschlüsselungstechnik (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514228)

LOL, What?

Re:Verschlüsselungstechnik (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514483)

As the late and great Frank Zappa said:
Don't fool yerself, girl
It's goin' right up yer poop chute

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along... (1, Funny)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514230)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

For a second there I thought they had gotten to Slashdot too. But seriously, does anyone know how to download and make a copy of wikipedia? I have a severely underused hosting account that I wouldn't mind using as a mirror for everyone's favorite free encyclopedia.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (3, Informative)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514301)

You can download database dumps [wikimedia.org] and you can find some help with importing into a fresh Mediawiki installation [wikipedia.org]. You can try Wikifilter [sourceforge.net] for converting the dump data into HTML.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514445)

Thanks for the useful information.

P.S. Your humorometer is broken.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514329)

Just go here [wikimedia.org] and download the database.

But still I don't see why calling Boris Floricic by his name, Boris Floricic, should be a crime! I mean, I've said Boris Floricic three times in this post, and I doubt I will only say Boris Floricic three times (Or four? I mean, Boris Floricic rolls off the tongue! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic! Boris Floricic!)

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514407)

Stop saying Boris Floricic!

No-one ist to stone... (5, Funny)

frog23 (707143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514474)

"No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even--and I want to make this absolutely clear--even if they do say Boris Floricic."

I don't see the problem here (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514480)

I looked at the page, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. In fact, I don't understand a word of it -- it might as well be in another language!

Not the first site that's buckled from a C&D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514242)

I'm looking your way /.

Actually, (5, Informative)

Captain Perspicuous (899892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514243)

the german wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (which is under Jimmy's control) was never down, only the site www.wikipedia.de [wikipedia.de] (under control of a german club), which normally redirected to the former, and is still down now. So, everybody who remembers the "real" wikipedia address can still use wikipedia without any problems.

Re:Actually, (3, Interesting)

Captain Perspicuous (899892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514336)

Just wanted to add this: It's pretty easy to block a server quickly in many countries with a provisional injunction (at least it's easy in most european countries). But as soon as such an injunction has to cross a national border, it becomes much more tricky. So the distributed nature of the internet has made it easier to keep information out there (or more difficult to stop info, whatever is your view point), and this principle is what we can see at work here.

Hurray for US free speech rights, now automatically exported to every other nation on the planet*.
(*exceptions apply for walled China, Saudi Arabia and Tunesia...)

But why? (-1, Offtopic)

Life700MB (930032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514254)


It was a great movie! Why would they not listed in the credits???

... Hacker? What do you... doh!


--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

MCP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514263)

"A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry.""

MCP is trying to delete another program.

Re:Babelfish Translation LInk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514664)

I keep imagining buffalo bill from the silence of the lambs reading this translation outloud...

"It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it get's the hose again"

Just hot air (3, Informative)

arvindn (542080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514266)

Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.

Re:Just hot air (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514502)

The Wikimedia foundation has a German chapter, though. I'm not sure whether that really means much - and it probably very much depends on exactly what kind of influence / authority this chapter has -, but it's not like Wikipedia's just a US website entire unconnected (legally) to Germany, either.

Re:Just hot air (3, Interesting)

hweimer (709734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514555)

Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If Jimbo decides to ignore this issue, Wikimedia Germany might face paying fines and damages since the original offender is out of reach. German law has some provisions allowing this and they are enforced quite often, especially when dealing with links to sites in another jurisdiction.

Re:Just hot air (1)

Jamesday (794888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514745)

So the German chapter loses all of its assets over the content of the German language (note German) Wikipedia. That's fine. Beats giving the German or Swiss or other courts control of all German language content.

Wikiopinions (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514273)

Why do people insist on thinking wikipedia is based on facts? Everyone should know by now that this is just the new home of all the old school usenet trolls! Wikiwasteoftime if ya ask me...

Not really (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514279)

It's not like the German wikipedia is taken off the net. It's just the popular domain wikipedia.de that's unavailable. de.wikipedia.org works just fine, and has all the information ready that is being debated.
It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court. I'd bet they'll just reject to even start debating the case. Freedom of press is valued highly _in Germany_, you know.

Re:Not really (1)

sploxx (622853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514352)

It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court.

But I don't understand why they are blocking the whole site/redirector wikipedia.de. Wouldn't it be enough to just block the article in question?

This seems to be either a clueless court or wikipedia.de trying to get some media attention on this censorship issue.

Re:Not really (2, Informative)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514622)

wikipedia.de redirects to de.wikipedia.org. there is no way to edit/block pages on wikipedia.de without doing the same on de.wikipedia.org.

ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen! (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514280)

ACHTUNG!

ALLES WEBBENSURFERS!

Das Wikipagen is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy pissen off der blogbereich, libellen und slanderen mit lawsuitspawnen. Ist nicht fur editten by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen das cotten-pickenen hands in das pockets - relaxen und watchen das flammekrieg.

Expert translation (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514311)

NOTE!

EVERYTHING WEBBENSURFERS!

The Wikipagen is not fur gefingerpoken and mittengrabben. Easy pissen off is that blogbereich, spirit levels and slanderen with lawsuitspawnen. Is not fur editten by the dummkopfen. Rubbernecken kourtjudgen musten keepen the that cotten pickenen hands in pockets - relaxen and watchen that flaming war.

Re: Expert translation (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514374)

You forgot to mention that your expert's name is 'babblefish'.

Re: Expert translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514451)

Indeed. The great Babblefish, from the holy city of Babblyon, where people of all languages unite in diversity.

Re:Expert translation (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514702)

Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German. Good work missing the joke though.

Re:Expert translation (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514766)

>Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German.

Given the quality of babelfish's typical translation, pseudo-German is just as good as the real thing...

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen! (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514319)

Das Wikipagen is nicht fur gefingerpoken ...

Can't wait to see someone run this through the Encheferizer [twinpines.nl]

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514527)

ECHTOoNG!

ELLES VEBBENSOoRFERS!

Des Veekipegee is neecht foor geffeengerpukee und meettengrebbee. Ist iesy peessee ooffff der blugbereeech, leebellee und slunderee meet levsooeetspevnee. Ist neecht foor ideettee by des doommkupffee. Des roobberneckee kuoortjoodgee moostee keepee des cuttee-peeckenee hunds in des puckets - relexee und vetchee des flemmekreeeg.

Bork Bork Bork!

Re:ACHTUNG! Alles Webbensurfen! (2, Funny)

oddaddresstrap (702574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514529)

Wow, this post shows that the Germans have really made a lot of progress in modernizing their language! When I took German in high school (many years ago) it seemed like they had a different word for everything...

Actual Complaint (2, Interesting)

wangf00 (901609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514283)

So what is their actual complaint here? Are they just mad that wikipedia posted easily findable information in an article? Or are they mad that their name is linked to a convicted criminal? Seems like wikipedia is the wrong place to divert that anger.

Re:Actual Complaint (2, Interesting)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514370)

According to another Wiki article [wikipedia.org], the parents originally tried to force a German publisher to remove from sale a piece of fiction that had a character with their son's handle, Tron. Allegedly, the publisher declined saying that the Wikipedia used the name. The parents now pursue Wikipedia. This is all completely based on the Wiki article [wikipedia.org], though.

Re:Actual Complaint (1)

jmnormand (941909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514572)

Actualy the book used the name Boris Floricic not Tron. i suspect disney would have a bit of an issue with a book using the name Tron. however unless the "fictional" book was specificly based on Tron's life i dont see how they have any claim. just because you choose a name for you kid doesnt make it a trademark...

German Privacy Laws (1)

yitzhak (720512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514642)

As much as I support the freedom of information, you have to admire German privacy laws (Datenschutz). Selling your cell phone calls with location? Not a problem in Germany, for good reason.

Basically, the man has a right to have his identity protected in Germany. No, they can't censor the internet, but they can make their position as clear as possible, and I kind of support them standing up to the constant stripping away of privacy that occurs on the internet.

Slashdotters, you always care so much about privacy - is it only when it's your own? And what do we gain by knowing his full last name, instead of the inital? It is a violation of the dead man's privacy and that of his family, with no gain whatsoever to us. The only way to walk the line between freedom of information and invasion of privacy is to be pragmatic in this regard, and recognize that we deserve to protect that information which is not of public interest.

Re:German Privacy Laws (1)

Jamesday (794888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514762)

What privacy? He's dead and can no longer care about anything. Looks as though there will no longer be a de.wikipedia domain, courtesy of his family. Hope they like their own Wikipedia entry, since the press coverage for this causes them to pass the threshold for qualifying for one.

If they can do this over the issue of a name (0, Flamebait)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514286)

If they can do this over the accurate issue of a name, then Wikipedia will just be shut down every other week over some trivial issue or another and essentially become useless.

What I don't understand is:

1: Why didn't they just ask to have the offending reference removed, instead of the forwarding domain?

2: Don't these fools realize no single country can shut down information on the Internet. Sites absolutely thrive in posting information banned on one country or another, and it's a Whack-a-Mole to try and ever get them all.

And btw, IMHO these parents really offend easily. Too easily! Judges shouldn't give in so easily to hurt feelings or nobody will be allowed to say anything. As it looks now, some Germans still want to rewrite history -- which is a very bad habit to get into.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514540)

Now, I'm no expert on Germany - about as close as I get is that I'm about a quarter german, maybe more, which means jack diddly. But it seems to me that they're a nation in denial. Their utter lack of freedom of speech strikes me as particularly gestapo-esque (Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!) and instead of having an open forum to discuss what happened with the whole WWII thing they seem to be trying to bury it. I can't see how that wouldn't keep the nation's whole mentality in a seriously fucked up state.

WTF? (4, Insightful)

harmonica (29841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514729)

What has the "whole WWII thing" to do with this particular Wikipedia problem? Utter lack of freedom of speech? Germany does not discuss its Nazi past and is trying to bury it? Have you ever been to Germany, watched at least some German television or read a German newspaper? We're talking about the same Germany that ranks a lot higher on that world press freedom ranking [rsf.org] than almost everyone else, including the US? That constantly discusses its Nazi past? And what do you know about the German legal system and this particular case?

You have no idea what you're talking about. And why is this moderated Insightful? Seriously, moderators, get a clue or refrain from moderating.

Re:WTF? (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514773)

Interestingly, I said up front that I was purely speculating, and yet you still felt a need to vent your spleen on me. However, there are many laws controlling speech about Nazism in Germany. The press is free - unless you want to say certain things about Nazism. Which means it's not free. Exceptions are a bitch.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name (3, Interesting)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514550)

Calm down, it's just a preliminary injunction. These are relatively easy to get pretty much everywhere, and it doesn't say anything about what the final decision will be.

And for that matter... the whole case is clearly ridiculous, so it will get thrown out quickly enough. There's no need to rave about how "no single country can shut down information on the internet" and how "some Germans still want to rewrite history" - in fact, the last statement seems to be borderline Godwinesque, although I may be misinterpreting it.

So, just relax.

they are much harder to get elsewhere (2, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514726)

In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint [wikipedia.org]", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name (1)

gte910h (239582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514632)

Laywers often don't understand the internet. They probably worded their motion in a way that taking down the redirect satisfied the injunction. --Michael

Germany has a history of anti free speech rulings. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514287)

Germany regularly arrests people who express racial opinions or present alternative accounts of the holocaust, so seeing German courts pull crap like this doesn't surprise me.

OK, I'll bite (5, Insightful)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514448)

What is a racial opinion? What are races anyway? The concept of "human races" has a long and dark history, it has never done any good to anyone, except that some people can claim themselves superior and others inferior. It only serves to de-humanise whole nations or other groups followed by the inevitable extermination campaign. Pretty much every nation, past or present, that has or ever has had lust for power and domination, has used this strategy. Now if you don't mind, Germany does not want to repeat this horrendous mistake by letting demagogues rise. There is a lot of evil hiding inside every population, and it's called indifference. This evil is going strong in Western nations nowadays, and the more important it is that such people need to be stopped in their tracks. And you, Anonymous Coward, wherever you live, just hope your country never needs to get its own Hitler to realize this.

"Alternate versions" of the Holocaust are to the actual Holocaust what Intelligent Design is to Evolution, only infinitely worse.

Re:OK, I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514478)

So you're basically saying that ID proponents should be rounded up, arrested, and given sham trials?

Hmm.. I'll have to think about that one.

Re:OK, I'll bite (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514697)

You should have the right to say what you want, even if it is stupid or racist. Now, stopping people from saying things like that wouldn't be all that bad in and of itself, but once the government can do that, it can stop people from saying anything. That is a short path to tyranny.

Re:OK, I'll bite (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514705)

Shut the fuck up, Jew.

Re:Germany has a history of anti free speech rulin (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514707)

"alternative accounts"

holy shiat when did holocaust denial get it's own PC term?

What this is (apparently) really about (5, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514315)

Last paragraph of Wikipedia's [EN] entry: [wikipedia.org]
The Austrian online magazine "futurezone" interviewed Andy Müller-Maguhn on 19 January 2006 about the case and its backgrounds. Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well. Müller-Maguhn then asked the German Wikipedia to remove the name, but was turned down for a number of reason, including failure to present proof that he is entitled to speak and act on behalf of the parents.

So basically, because they want to stop some guy from using the name for a fictional character they're trying to stop Wikipedia from using it to refer to the actual, original person.

W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!

Re:What this is (apparently) really about (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514560)

W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!

For the same reason that parents sue game manufacturers when some kid blames his bad behavior on a video game, of course.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514607)

The answer is simple: Germany is not the USA. We don't sue over everything just because we can - if a German goes to court (s)he does it for very good reasons, for example because less radical (and expensive, as lawsuits tend to be) methods didn't work. I would have found it quite strange if they would have sued the publisher as the first reaction.

A lawsuit is a logical step, but it's still a bit away.

Re:What this is (apparently) really about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514677)

So, basically, you are arguing that in Germany, using inappropriate is done because unlike in the US, Germans don't just sue because they can.

Did you type this in German and then use bablefish to translate?

Re:What this is (apparently) really about (2, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514682)

I think the point wasn't that they should have sued the publisher, but that Wikipedia was the wrong target for legal action.

how does that fit this? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514752)

They did sue someone as the first reaction, though. Only, instead of suing the publisher, they sued someone completely unrelated.

How is that better?

the world isn't going to end (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514327)

I was pretty confused today when I tried to access the German version of wikipedia through www.wikipedia.de, because they merely stated that some court in Berlin ordered them to abandon this URL. After a brief moment of shock I just went to www.wikipedia.org and clicked on the link for the German version (which worked). It's just a small detour and actually it's just fair if you take into account that the .com URL always redirected you to .org (if you type in www.wikipedia.co.uk you end up on the English version directly on the other hand).

Re:the world isn't going to end (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514538)

It's just a small detour and actually it's just fair if you take into account that the .com URL always redirected you to .org (if you type in www.wikipedia.co.uk you end up on the English version directly on the other hand).

So, as long as they don't piss off the USA (which runs the DNS system) Wikipedia should be fine.. but as we saw with a certain lawyer who allegedly played a part in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Wikipedia is not untouchable.

Globalization is making these laws pointless (1)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514334)

With global news markets, the prohibitions of publishing a suspect's last name is getting a somewhat pointless. In the Netherlands, you have to say Muhammed B., but you only need to check the BBC website to find out that it's Muhammad Bouyeri. In the Netherlands, you read "Joran van der S.", but every website in the US prints "Joran van der Sloot."

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514387)

The prohibitions of publishing a suspect's last name is getting a somewhat pointless.

It might be pointless, but with the vulturing going around in the news media to publish as much details as possible before a judge has ruled, I prefer the good old John D. without any pictures (or pictures with a black bar over the eyes) than the full name, address, date of birth, current-outfit and colour photos printed on the frontpage with in large font above it "How could this man do...".

Re:Globalization is making these laws pointless (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514643)

I think it is a good practice, something the global news market perhaps should take note of instead of just slandering the names of (potential) suspects for money. Keeping the suspects anonymous in no way affects the story as it is highly unlikely that any significant percentage of readers even directly know the suspect in question.

After all we are talking about *suspects* here, that is people that MIGHT be the actual offender, but of which you cannot be sure. That's how I always try to see such people when they are on the news, as suspects, not as convicted criminals -- but that's sometimes hard given the spin the media tends to put on such stories.

In any case, by posting pictures, full names and every other imaginable detail, the suspect is already ruined and might as well have been found guilty. Sueing the media afterwards might be a good option, as they are by far and large responsible for ruining the lives of suspects later found innocent.

Direct link? (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514343)

IANA(G)L, but is there anything stopping www.wikipedia.de from explicitly telling viewers how to get to the real German wikipedia site... e.g. a direct link to de.wikipedia.org

Suing the wikipedia.de site seems ineffective. By the way, there's more background on the case at the English wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org].

Direct link! (1)

frog23 (707143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514420)

Actually there is a reason for that: According to the German court corder they are not allow to link to the content that provides those "information" (i.e.: the real name). Otherwise it might almost be the same then forwarding, only less automated. Some news sources in Germany say, the earliest the site could be up again is in about 2 weeks.

Well done. (5, Insightful)

kunzy (880730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514344)

So instead of having his family name in an obscure wikipedia entry that no one ever reads its on the frontpage of slashdot now. Way better...

Re:Well done. (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514372)

So instead of having his family name in an obscure wikipedia entry that no one ever reads its on the frontpage of slashdot now. Way better...

      I am printing the T-shirts as we speak ...

Boris ducks into a phone booth and.... (5, Funny)

BHennessy (639799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514349)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benjamin_Parker [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man [wikipedia.org] both link/redirect to the same page, clearly giving away his secret identity, if the Parkers can put up with it, then it shouldn't be a big deal for Tron/Boris F./Boris Floricic 's family.

Re:Boris ducks into a phone booth and.... (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514727)

So THAT'S why Peter always seems to be missing whenever Spider-Man shows up!

Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways. (-1, Troll)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514353)

http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Admin_says_on ly_Wiki_Admin_s_can_comment_on_process [digg.com]

"The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely."

What's the point of having a wikipedia if only wiki editors are allowed to comment anyways. . .

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways. (2, Informative)

Brushen (938011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514618)

First of all, that quote in no way anywhere says only administrators can comment on Wikipedia process. All Wikipedia editors and anonymous users are welcome to comment on the process.

Second of all, on the pages where users vote on whether or not to delete a page, only registered users may have their votes counted. Anonymous users can engage in debate, but not vote, I suppose like Puerto Rico and Guam's delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Third, this is to prevent users from going to their LiveJournal and rounding up hundreds of their online buddies to vote on an Article for Deletion page to keep their no-name garage band or other non-notable things from being deleted. Registered users that vote in AFDs, or Articles for Deletion, have their votes counted based on how many edits are sufficient to tell if they've registered specifically to vote in that AFD or not.

When an anonymous user creates hundreds of registered accounts to vote on a Wikipedia AFD to prevent it from getting deleted, the jargon for this is "sockpuppeting." The jargon for an anonymous user getting hundreds of their friends to vote on an AFD to keep an article they created from getting deleted is called "meatpuppeting."

Fourth, there is no 50% threshold where entries on AFD become deleted. If an article has around 50% deletion votes, the default is to keep the article because it the community is too uncertain. Most administrators I have talked to say it's clear the community has decided a certain way when around 66% vote a certain way, while some have put it around 80%, or, most wisely, judge it on a case-by-case basis.

These are very good mechanisms to help prevent Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by neo-Nazis and beastiality connaisseurs who want to create 500 Wikipedia articles on self-invented terms for man-on-sheep sex positions.

Re:Eh, wikipedia's gone down hill anyways. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514630)

"The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely."

What's the point of having a wikipedia if only wiki editors are allowed to comment anyways. . .

Mostly it's to eliminate idiot comments like the one you just made.

I went and looked at your link. Here's the submission:

Wikipedia Admin says only Wiki Admin's can comment on process

submitted by kabewm 47 minutes ago (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org])

Obviously this story was submitted by a moron. Let me help him: 's/Admin's/Admins/' will do the trick.

Second, your very own quotation puts the lie to the idiotic headline on the submission:

comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

If we read this sentence carefully, we may be able to extract its actual meaning, not the meaning you erroneously believe it contains. I suggest you look up the words "traditionally" and "may".

I can give you the basic flavor of the message without you going to such trouble, however. "If you have not demonstrated your commitment to Wikipedia, we may ignore you." Seems entirely reasonable to me...

"From"? (0, Flamebait)

Finnegar (918643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514354)

"...is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." Shouldn't that be: "...is trying to force Wikipedia.de TO removE the family name from his entry." (Highlights mine) Was the submitter a German? If so, I can understand how he got these minor things wrong, because otherwise this sentence makes very little sense, and is something a native speaker should spot easily. Did anyone read this again before posting it on the front page?

Bin Laden Family requests the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514363)

They would like Osama's entry to refer to him only as Osama Bunnyslippers.

1h ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514371)

Google RSS feed:
Wired News: Top Stories - Web 2.0 Has Arrived - 1 hour ago

where did it arrive 1h ago?

Oh boy... (2, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514375)

No better way to divert attention than to trying to shut down an international site. I'm REALLY sure nobody will know, from now on, who Boris Floricic aka "Tron" is!

Oops, what did I say? *shuts mouth*

Bogus (2, Interesting)

tmandry (710511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514397)

From the Wikipedia article:

The order prohibits the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the domain "wikipedia.org".
And how is Wikimedia going to carry that out? Censor the name from going into pages? That would severely hurt their credibility while being ineffective (there are so many ways around computer censors that it's not even funny).

Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well.
In that case it was, as is clearly stated, fictitious. It could have easily misrepresented 'Tron', while Wikipedia is (or strives to be) factual. How can they tell us to stop telling the truth? More importantly, does this mean any old criminal can demand that his name be removed from Wikipedia? Who has the power here - a foreign country that Wikimedia isn't even based in, or Wikimedia itself? Where do freedom of speech/press end and let privacy and the whims of different countries begin to take control?

Sounds a whole lot like the internet control controversy again to me.

considering his real name was in WIRED magazine... (0, Flamebait)

voss (52565) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514398)

Doesnt that make him a public figure under US law where wikipedia is located?
He also was a convicted of a crime so his name was a matter of public record in germany.

I couldnt imagine any US court enforcing
an injunction of that nature.

I just imagine the judge saying "Do you also want us go around and collect all the issues of Wired Magazine with his name in it?"

Message to all Germans...the last time Germany could tell other countries what to do was 60 years ago...there was also a court that settled that issue it was in Nuremburg.

Heres the Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials [wikipedia.org]
or the german one
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberger_Proze sse [wikipedia.org]

mod parent down (1)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514575)

As several posters before you have pointed out, there was no injunction whatsoever against any US-based organisation; TFS is misleading. The injunction was brought up against a german website, not wikipedia.org.

did you read the article? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514711)

They sent legal papers to the offices of the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida, demanding they appoint a representative in Germany to defend the case.

Mod parent down. (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514637)

What the heck does this to do with WW2?

It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".

Re:Mod parent down. (2, Interesting)

stixman (119688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514772)

What the heck does this to do with WW2?
I agree, it's just easy to do when all that some people know about Germany IS WWII. Therefore, everything "bad" that happens in Germany gets an automatic reference to Naziism.
It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".
Hitler's intentions for the world were clearly stated, both in his speeches and in his book. The new danger is better disguised...

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514691)

We're not telling anyone anything. Our jurisdiction covers the wikipedia.de domain (as it's registered with the DENIC, which is, you know, German), everything past that is outside the reach of Germany's courts. Don't think that our judges aren't smart enough to know that. Theoretically they could try to make a move against Wikimedia, but they are amart enough to know that this case doesn't warrant an international lawsuit, too. Besides, the injunction does not go against Wikimedia as a whole but against the German chapter. Which happens to sit in Germany.

Trust me, we won't attack Poland because someone posted the name of a dead hacker on Wikipedia. Really.


Oh, and we tell other countries what to do all the time. Like that one time when we told you to stay the fuck out of Iraq if you don't have to defend yourselves from them (I don't want to comment on that war now, but it's a good example of us telling you what to do). We're quite good at bossing around people bigger than us - good thing that it's not the bossing around that always got us into trouble but the bad habit of causing epic world wars to occur... And we're clean of that now.

See, now that's bizarre (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514408)

So you sue someone to stop them from mentioning your name.

That just brings up all kinds of odd questions. Like: Is wikipedia allowed to talk about the fact they got sued? And if they do talk about being sued, are they allowed to mention the names of the people who sued them? Since, you know, it's apparently banned to mention these people's last names, that's why wikipedia's in court in the first place. How does wikipedia report on the court case? Do they have to just say "we have been sued by somebody, we can't tell you who, but their name begins with F"? Are they allowed to publish documents, like court summons and such, from the case but only so long as they black out the names of the plaintiffs with a magic marker?

"force to" or "prevent from" ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514458)

Cdmr Tocac,

Remember how you wrote that you didn't care about grammar, even though foreigners replied that it was important, even to them ?

Remember how one of them said that it was important because bad grammar meant a post could be stating the opposite of what was intended ?

WTF is intended by this sentence ?:

    "is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry."

Does this mean he wants them to remove his family name or he wants to stop them from removing it ?

  -> THE READER CANNOT TELL !

Stop denying it's important, stop writing non-sensical shit and JUST %%&$ FIX IT !

--

And, mods, it's not off-topic if one is trying to clarify the bleedin' meanin' of a post.

Legal Status (3, Interesting)

RebelGuys2 (857090) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514519)

I was editing on Wikipedia when the legal notice started to surface on the English Wikipedia entry for this individual, which was quickly deleted by English Wikipedia Administrators. Last I checked, all Wikipedia entries do not include Boris's last name, and though our opinions differ on the matter, most of us refer to Boris as "Boris F---" or something of the like in Discussion and Talk pages. The main dilemma, of course, remains as to whether Germany has jurisdiction over our content. Legally, they do not, as the Wikimedia servers are hosted in Florida. However, there is precedent that any individual involved in writing this article can be immediately detained upon ever setting foot in Germany. I can't remember the details, but an Australian man writing revisionist Nazi theories was arrested for publishing his works elsewhere. We can continue to post up "Floricic," or however it's spelled, on Wikipedia if we wished. However, I think that the Administrators were justified in making the page deletes due to legal threats. Where do we draw the line, though? If Iran ordered us to not write about something, I'd seriously doubt most administrators on Wikipedia would take drastic action. I seriously doubt the U.S. would ever consider extradition (not to mention the public outcry) if an American was shipped away because of an anti-free speech German law. The bottom line is: legally, Wikipedia has no need to listen to Germany. However, what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?

Re:Legal Status (0, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514679)

it's only really a threat to the wikimedia foundation, as the NAZI government has no way of identifying the real name of american posters online. they can neither find the IP address related to the wikipedia pseudonym or associate the IP to an ISP customer.

beyond that even with a name they have no way of getting social security, passport, or Driver's license ID numbers to correlate the multitude of people with the same name to a specific person.

U.S. Still the Shining Light of Free Speech (0, Flamebait)

mike2006 (947377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514624)

The entire German .de site shut down for just a few mentions of a name out of 341,000 articles. Thank God we could not imagine this happening here in the US. Those that love to bash the US both here and abroad should take note.

Quick! Give the UN some DNS authority! (2, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514668)

Because only the UN is above the politics and special-interest pushing and pulling that might cause a domain record to yanked for making someone upset.

"Tron?" (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514718)

"the short version is that the family of "Tron""

Anybody else fist thought of the Dave Chapelle Show before thinking of the Disney movie?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...