By Temporary Order of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens, the editor and administrator of Wikipedia Diu is ordered to delete information from the biography of Theodoros Katsanevas on Wikipedia. This Temporary Order constitutes a precedent that may, in addition to being inconvenient for the applicant, also be dangerous for the way in which freedom of speech is exercised in our country, the Free Software/Open Source Software Association comments with surprise and particular concern.
The EEL/LAK issued a relevant announcement regarding the timeline of the lawsuit "against common sense".
As he clarifies, this is a Temporary Order and not a court decision, and therefore we have neither a reason for it nor does it produce any form of binding res judicata.
The timeline of the lawsuit
About 2 years ago, the Greek Liberal Democratic Party (ELD) received an extrajudicial protest letter from Mr. Theodoros Katsaneva, in which he requested the deletion of part of the article posted on "Wikipedia" about him, considering that the Greek Liberal Democratic Party (ELD) is responsible and represents the editors and administrators of Wikipedia, as well as being involved in the writing of its content. Subsequently, and after the EEL/LAK informed in writing that it cannot satisfy the demands of the out-of-court protest as it does not represent Wikipedia, neither its Greek edition nor any other, and in no way supervises its administrators or editors, nor does it edit the content posted on it, Mr. Katsanevas proceeded with a lawsuit against the EEL/LAK and the editor who posted the article in question, and a few days ago he also filed a request for injunctions, as well as a request for a Temporary Order, which was heard on 13.02.14.
Diu was not acquitted
The decision was exonerating for EEL/LAK, but not for the Wikipedia editor who, according to the decision, is required to temporarily delete from Wikipedia the entry with Mr. Katsaneva's CV until the discussion on the interim measures which was set for 11.03.2014.
The rejection of the application for a Temporary Injunction against EEL/LAK is completely logical, as EEL/LAK promotes and supports open content in general (e.g. see the mycontent action https://mycontent.ellak.gr/), but also the action of the Greek Wikipedia in particular, without however claiming or being in any way a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation in Greece. EEL/LAK is the equivalent of an environmental organization, such as e.g. Greenpeace or WWF, which can e.g. to support the cultivation of organic products, but it does not produce these products itself, nor can it be sued in the event that someone, for example, claims to have a health problem from consuming such a product.
Why is freedom of speech under threat?
The non-profit organization of dozens of Greek universities, research centers and technological institutions expresses its concern about the acceptance of Katsaneva's request against the Wikipedia editor and specifically explains:
"The acceptance of the request against the Wikipedia editor cannot but deeply concern us, both as an organization that aims to disseminate and strengthen open knowledge in every way, especially through Wikipedia, and as citizens in relation to what similar decisions may mean for freedom of speech.".
The Wikipedia editor, throughout the intervening period, from the first moment of the publication of the relevant article until now, has taken all necessary measures to ensure that it follows the three pillars of Wikipedia:
That is, what he writes
(a) obeys the principle of a neutral point of view, fairly and equally represents all opinions and is not biased
(b) the article can be verified by published sources and
(c) the article does not constitute original research, but reproduces existing published sources.
It is important to emphasize that Wikipedia essentially controls these three principles itself, through a system of decentralized control. This is easily and effortlessly evident from the relevant discussion on the relevant article by Theodore Katsaneva, which is publicly available and one can see its development up to the filing of the lawsuit, as well as the discussion that has been opened in relation to the development of the lawsuit. Furthermore, compliance with these principles is ensured through the existence of a system of Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats, who are Wikipedia users, who have been given increased rights, with the aim of protecting the content and facilitating the operation of Wikipedia.
What is the Wikimedia Foundation's stance on the Diu case?
You can read the Wikimedia Foundation's post regarding the case against Diu. tech.in.gr contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about the issue. Among other things, we asked to know what Wikipedia's policy is regarding references to press articles for which there are court decisions for defamation.
Asav Bartov replies to Anthi Panagiotaki that, if it is a reliable source, however, following an order from the Court, the publication was withdrawn as defamatory, then the relevant reference in the Wikipedia article should also be deleted. However, if the article was not withdrawn, there is no reason not to make a reference and a reference, even if legal proceedings are pending regarding it. It is noted that in Mr. Katsaneva's biography, the questioning of the will with the disputed characterizations and the conviction of the journalist for slanderous defamation are mentioned. The references to the article are in a number of newspapers as well as in Greek news agencies.
Regarding support from the Wikimedia Foundation, it is noted that editors are responsible for what they write on Wikipedia and should not file libel claims. However, if they contribute in good faith, in accordance with the encyclopedia's content policy, with references to reliable sources and especially for living persons, then if they are attacked, the Foundation can and will support them in court.
Unable to enforce the court's interim order
The most interesting point, however, is what has followed the temporary injunction, which was more or less expected for anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with how Wikipedia works:
- Diu followed the interim order and removed the disputed references from the relevant article (see relevant page). In fact, because other users made changes to the article contrary to the decision, Diu restored it to the court-ordered status 10 times on the same day.
- because in this way he grossly violated the three-revert rule, i.e. the rule that does not allow a user to revert content more than three times in a 24-hour period, as expected according to Wikipedia rules, he was banned from editing for three days. (Read about the Three-Revert Rule and Banning on Wikipedia)
- the article not only returned to its original state, that is, the state it was in before the Diu changes (according to the court's decision), but also, due to the publicity the case has received, "articles have already been created in his name, on Wikipedia in English, Catalan, Polish, etc., and even in the Sakha language spoken in the homonymous Autonomous Republic of the Russian Federation in Siberia (Yakutia), where the article mentions almost only the disputed phrase and his dispute with the Greek user, with almost no reference to his political or academic career." (See the article Theodoros Katatsanevas in English, Catalan, Polish, Sakha)
This is, therefore, a decision that is practically impossible to implement. Even when Diu complies with it, another “Diu” in Poland, Catalonia or somewhere else will be able to change the content, as long as they follow Wikipedia's rules.
The most essential dimension of the expression “we are all Diu”:
"Wikipedia's rules are much stricter and more directly applicable than those of classical justice. They are applied decentralized and have immediate results. For these reasons, they are preferable to the classical practice of lawsuits and lawsuits," writes EEL/LAK.
The unfortunate thing about this decision is not that it simply contradicts Wikipedia's content policy (neutrality, verifiability, not original research) on an international level. It is that it paves the way for a pipeline industry in which anyone who is "dissatisfied" with a relevant article posted on Wikipedia, and while relying on sources whose content is available on the internet, can take legal action against any user who has written the article and has used these sources, and not against the original sources on which the article was based.
This specific decision directly pursues freedom of expression and the defense of knowledge and free information, and promotes censorship of Wikipedia and its editors, who voluntarily participate in a global collaborative project so that the Greek version of Wikipedia exists and is maintained at a high level.
The EEL/LAK, as it formulated its position in court, also formulates it publicly and continues to support freedom of speech, digital commons and open content, but - above all - common sense which we hope and believe will return with the future decisions of the Greek courts.
Who is the EEL/LAK?
The non-profit Free Software/Open Source Software Association (https://eellak.gr/, EELK) was founded in 2008 by 25 Universities, Research Centers and Technological Institutes. EELK's main goal is to contribute to the promotion and development of Free Software, Open Content and Open Architecture Technologies in the fields of education, the public sector and businesses in Greece, while at the same time it aspires to become a knowledge center and a platform for dialogue on open technologies. It also collaborates with Creative Commons and is a founding member of COMMUNIA.
