Talk:Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation

Larry Singer

I just removed Larry Singer's letter in here as it violates BLP1E and NLT. Obviously,if consensus is against that, I'll yield to it. Thanks @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not so great in Germany

Should a section be added about this loss for the Wikimedia Foundation in Germany? - 2001:558:1400:10:5A7:FD8D:4008:7F68 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan L. Burke

I see a mention of a lawsuit on List of Wikipedia controversies as follows:

September 2013 – Lawyer Susan L. Burke who had represented Iraqi civilians against the private military company Blackwater Inc (now known as Academi) sued to discover the identity of two Wikipedia editors who allegedly inserted misleading information into the Wikipedia article about her and whom she alleged were associates of Blackwater Inc.[244]

Why is there no mention of that lawsuit in this article? 66.97.209.215 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Subpeonas

I understand many subpeonas requiring information on contributors have been served, (including one against a WP:BOT) - do we have any reliable sources about this? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

I don't, off-hand. But I expect that this area will be the subject of scrutiny, following this just-published WSJ article regarding Yelp, as well as this one re Yelp subpoenas.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

AAFM

I suspect this material was added by AAFM, it is badly written and does not ring true. The "complaint" that they publish on their website is full of misleading claims: for example:

The Wall Street Journal specifies AAFM standards of using [[ACBSP]] and [[ACBSP]] education which represents business schools such as Yale, Harvard, and other Business schools. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_CREDIT1015_20101015.html [Wiki-markup and duplication in the original]

The publication does indeed specify that if you have certain qualifications (including ACBSP) already, AAFM qualifications are yours for a cheque. In other words money changes hands, no teaching and no learning takes place, and you get a diploma.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

I have removed the uncited information, it constitutes a BLP violation against the editors involved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

The latest lawsuit

Can be found here [1] Lamprecht man (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR? Benjamin (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs Some Sprucing Up

This article appears to be somewhat out of date and also uses some awkward word choice/phrasing suggesting that portions of it may have been written by folks not super familiar with the American legal system. I'll take a stab at fixing this up over the next few days. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell

Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry:

"John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. "

Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries.

Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count.

Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way.

In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We only reapreat what RS say, so it would be them who are libale (and see wp:legal). When (and if) he sues RS we will need to take notice. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If we cower to Campbell's threats, Wikipedia could as well close shop. As simple as that. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

DePaço?

This article is missing Caesar DePaço litigation. ReyHahn (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

New source

https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/ - This article that just came out seems like it might be a good source for some material in this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

From the article above: The San Francisco-based nonprofit has always affirmed that it is strongly committed to protecting the privacy of editors and users on Wikimedia projects. To this end, its privacy policy explicitly states it collects “very little personal information” about users.

But that framing is misleading, as the information the Foundation does possess is often enough to identify individuals given other contextual details – which is exactly why plaintiffs keep asking for it. Damn! That's scary. DangalOh (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Could be. But editors do not create information, they have to read in the mainstream media. So, information does not make its way to Wikipedia if it is not published in mainstream media. We're not WikiLeaks.

You don't really need anonymity in order to WP:CITE mainstream science, mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, mainstream medicine, and mainstream media. Anonymity gives editors a false sense of security. If people have a problem with the information posted at Wikipedia, they should sue mainstream media.

If somebody would seek to sue me for citing the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Nature (journal), any judge from my country would dismiss the trial as laughable. And the law against libel is dead letter. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct, but it’s not about getting sued. Sometimes anonymity is good, especially when some editor is posting something—deliberately or not—that might be considered inflammatory or defamatory by someone or something (be it as reliably cited as it may be and whatever the intention of the editor might be). You are right in saying that there’s no risk in editing science, medicine, etc., related articles (unless you are pushing or pulling some political, scientific, or medical theory). However, in today’s world, people are offended way too easily for the stupidest of reasons. Sometimes privacy is paramount, and if what the above article claims is true, then none of the editor or admin information is really "safe." Even though I don't engage in such edits, I will be seriously considering quitting Wikipedia (already having a negligible presence on other social media). Some editors will be very happy.

Even the thought that, after providing extremely little information while creating the account, someone is keeping tabs on who I really am? No, thank you. There are far more nefarious and powerful forces in the world than the government or courts. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but damn social media. DangalOh (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, anyone could pay a thug to terrorize someone else. But that's usually reserved for drug dealers and ex-lovers. Since for respectable people, there's a real fear that they will be caught as the mastermind. So, merely terrorizing someone for citing the New York Times is not worth such risk. It does not make sense: one does not terrorize the journalists who spilled the beans, they terrorize a poor loser who quoted a newspaper article. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)