31–40 of 76 posts
I would think the Wikimedia would stand on principle and refuse to remove items that are factually true. This capitulation to the whims of globally driven censorship needs to come to an end, and will only happen with an organization with a strong backbone and a commitment to freedom of speech and/or press.
I thought that the history is supposed to be available for legal reasons. It's the only way that contributors to the article are attributed, as required by the Creative Commons licensing. Edit: quite a bit of the history is unavailable, but the names of the contributors can still be seen. Perhaps that's sufficient. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Waibel&...
I would think the Wikimedia would stand on principle and refuse to remove items that are factually true. This capitulation to the whims of globally driven censorship needs to come to an end, and will only happen with an organization with a strong backbone and a commitment to freedom of speech and/or press.
I would prefer them to keep a separate version for Germany which will have additional indication that this page was censored by German government. People coming from other IP addresses should view original page. Surely Germany can't forbid people from the other countries to get some information from servers located outside of Germany.
I thought that the history is supposed to be available for legal reasons. It's the only way that contributors to the article are attributed, as required by the Creative Commons licensing. Edit: quite a bit of the history is unavailable, but the names of the contributors can still be seen. Perhaps that's sufficient. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Waibel&...
Courts typically have power over licenses.
I thought that the history is supposed to be available for legal reasons. It's the only way that contributors to the article are attributed, as required by the Creative Commons licensing. Edit: quite a bit of the history is unavailable, but the names of the contributors can still be seen. Perhaps that's sufficient. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Waibel&...
I thought that the history is supposed to be available for legal reasons. It's the only way that contributors to the article are attributed, as required by the Creative Commons licensing. Edit: quite a bit of the history is unavailable, but the names of the contributors can still be seen. Perhaps that's sufficient. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Waibel&...
If all of somebody's contributions are removed, there's nothing to attribute to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is archive.org not exempt? They are outside of EU jurisdiction unless they made the mistake of opening an office over there, which would be trivially fixable by shutting it down.
They are not exempt in the sense that the EU (or individual member states) will start blocking the Internet Archive if they don't comply.
How does Wikimedia determine which country’s laws it will comply with? Unless they have some physical presence in Germany, why wouldn’t they just tell the Germans to go pound sand instead?
This is troubling because there's nothing preventing a Chinese court from claiming jurisdiction over the page on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Of course that request will be thrown out because, well... it's China, but with the direction EU's taking, it's only a matter of time before western European countries start sending more of these takedown requests.
How does Wikimedia determine which country’s laws it will comply with? Unless they have some physical presence in Germany, why wouldn’t they just tell the Germans to go pound sand instead?