Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Acquittal of German Wikipedia

Posted by Zonk on Thu Feb 09, 2006 09:06 AM
from the encyclopedia-of-everything-keeps-keeping-on dept.
The Internet
Rock-n-Rolf writes "In a previous story Slashdot reported that the German Wikipedia was threatened with injunction. The court has now ruled, as reported in German magazine Spiegel, and Wikipedia is likely to remain online (Babelfish translation). The dispute was about Wikipedia publishing the real name of a dead hacker in an article, and the parents objected to this."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] German Wikipedia Threatened w/ Injunction 318 comments
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Acquittal of German Wikipedia 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wasn't it already decided his name was out there for all to see anyway???

  • Now would be a good time... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greppling (601175) on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:11AM (#14676672)
    ...to remove the name from article, IMHO. It was important to defend the right to give the name. But the name does not add anything to the article, and if it hurts the feeling of those closely involved, there is a good case for not mentioning it.

    Just because you CAN mention the name, this doesn't mean you have to.

    • Re:Now would be a good time... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:15AM (#14676711)
      How is someone's real name not relevant to an article about that person? You can't change history just because you are ashamed of your son.
      • Backround to this: The parants own a travel agency in Berlin and think customers will absence if they know about the son's death because they don't know how to react to this in front of his parents.
      • How is someone's real name not relevant to an article about that person?

        Because he never did anything significant under that name, and because whatever his surname is, it is completely irrelevant to the history of Tron. I'm sure you could also mention that he used Colgate toothpaste, it could be a fact but not a meaningful one.
    • You know you're right and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

      The truth hurts sometimes... so in those cases, we should just not mention the truth.
      You know, to make sure no one gets offended, or sniffly about anything.

      Perhaps our helpfull Government could do something to protect us from this thing called "truth" and the nefarious rise of factual information dissemination that has been causing everyone so much grief since the adoption of this here intarweb thingy.

    • Very true. The last time this discussion came around, someone remarked that some people do no notice how cruel they get when you stick very stricktly to your principles. That and a low empathy/self-improtance ratio ('my right to say whatever I like is much more important than caring for your feelings)

      It's a pity though that we'll probably get the same discussion here again.
    • where is the moderation for -1 spineless?

  • Misrepresentation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by soccerisgod (585710) on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:12AM (#14676679)
    de.wikipedia.org was never threatened with a shutdown injunction. The injunction was directed at prohibiting www.wikipedia.de, the website of the german wikipedia dependance, to link to de.wikipedia.org. www.wikipedia.de itself has no encyclopedical content whatsoever.

    It seems to me the german wikipedia people are trying to (ab)use this situation to their advantage. They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

    • Re:Misrepresentation (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

      Makes you wonder what they're up to? What about writing a complete encyclopedia that mentions a persons name in an article about a person?

      Frankly, it's quite ridiculous to think that an encyclopedia article about a person shouldn't mention his name. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutr
    • Huh? That's got to be one of the most trollish posts I've read today. How can you possibly see something sinister in defending yourself when you're sued (as opposed to just saying "yes, sir, of course, sir, our pleasure, sir, won't happen again, sir")?

      Stop the xenophobia, please.
      • The information this whole thing is about is entirely irrelevant to those that want to learn about this Tron person who in his days of glory was never known by his real name, only his alias. On the other hand, it can easily be used to annoy, stalk and/or torment his relatives, particularily his parents. It serves no actual use to any viewer of that encyclopedia, and it is irresponsible and reckless to publish it without good cause. It's the job of an encyclopedia to publish RELEVANT information, not just a
        • The real name of the subject of an article is relevant almost by definition. The encyclopedia should be able to function as a launching point for further investigation by the reader. The dual purposes of the reference section are (1) to allow verification of the accuracy of information and (2) to enable further research. The article should not merely say "A man existed, who went my such-and-such aliases, and did X, Y, and Z". It should identify the man. It should state that "Bill Johnson did X,Y, and Z
          • And in any case, as of this moment, Boris Floricic is far more notable for this silly business about his name than for what he actually did in his life. Even if the name wasn't relevant before, it certainly is now.
          • So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?

            Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways I don't know where to start. It's the same kind of reckless irresponsibility that makes newspapers print material they know will cause massive u

            • So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?

              Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways

              Absolutely, I have no problem with that what so ever. Of course the difference is where fact and fiction collide. Proof of fact bares out

            • If you were writing an encyclopedia article about me, that would be relevant information. It would be your obligation to include it.

              And plus if I'm dead and you write it, I'm really not going to be offended. Because, you know, I'm DEAD.
  • Could a link be provided to an english (non babelfish) link?

  • It's a basic policy not anything evil! (Score:4, Informative)

    by ami-in-hamburg (917802) on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:16AM (#14676716)
    Um, actually, there is stuff in the media all the time about the Nazi regime including TV, documentaries, news articles, etc...

    Now back on topic, it is a German policy not to use the last name of any person involved in legal matters.

    Newscaster: "Today, Santa C. was arrested on child pr0n charges in Berlin. Santa C. claims to be innocent of the crimes."

    That's just the way they do things here. It seems to apply to certain other situations as well but I haven't been able to find the particulars.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the public information laws or some such nonsense but I see it every night on the 6pm broadcast.

    • Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pe1rxq (141710) on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:22AM (#14676751) Homepage
      It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights.
      When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

      This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.
      • It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights. When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live. This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob. Which is all good and well. But the guy is dead. Dead people are typically afforded little consideration with respect to the rights normally held by, well, living people. There's a body of jurisprudence here,
      • When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

        And the injuction was to keep his name quiet? I had no clue about this guy nor his real name...and I wouldn't have if an injuction wasn't brought against WP (and I subsequently read about it). Now that they raised a raucous about it: I know his name.

        Congrats Mom & Dad Floricic: you promoted what you were trying to prevent!
      • It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights. When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

        Except for when, you know... they're dead?
        • So lets say you serially raped 150 girls, and before the trial you castrated yourself... Does that mean, since you are no longer capable of ever doing it again, that you shouldn't go to jail?

          Bad analogy. If you're a serial rapist, you have deep violence/anger management/power issues, and even if you're unable to physically have sex, you're still dangerous.

          But once you get the proper treatment, and could be proven to no longer be a danger to society, then keeping you locked up would be cruel and unusual

          • I'm curious as to how one could be "proven to no longer be a danger to society." How would you go about establishing proof of such a thing?

            (Note that some psychiartrist's or social worker's opinion in no way constitutes proof.)
            • You can't be 100% sure....
              Likewise we can't be sure about you either.... (maybe you will never be a danger, maybe you already have and got away with it, maybe you are a potential serial killer)

              There will always be a risk. You will have to be carefull when you let someone loose again, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do at a certain point in time. (There are people who will never be 'cured' of certain urges and should never be let loose)
              Mistakes will be made and we should learn from the
              • There will always be a risk. You will have to be carefull when you let someone loose again, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do at a certain point in time.

                Indeed. You need to be careful, you need to keep an eye on them, you may need to restrict their movements, but you also need to ensure that you're infringing their rights as little as possible. They may be the ones who violated the civil bargain, but it doesn't make them any less citizens.

                (There are people who will never be 'cur

            • So what you're basically saying is, do something wrong, and you lose all your intrinsic human rights? Doesn't that rather make a mockery of the word intrinsic?

              And that you'd rather inflict unnecessary punishment on someone for the rest of their life simply in order to keep someone else happy, when instead you could spend a tiny fraction of the money and make sure that they're never going to hurt anybody else, never going to come in contact with any of their erstwhile victims, and you get the economic bene

                • It's not -revenge-. It's a safety issue. What if said person gets out, and moves into the house next to them? Do you tell the women to suck it up and deal with it...?

                  Can you please read what I say?

                  I am not suggesting that dangerous people are released into society. I am not suggesting that I'm telling rape victims to 'just deal with it', and the only reason I can think why you should think I did say that is either not reading what I said, or else deliberately misunderstanding me.

                  If you can ensure that

        • Luckily the world isn't black and white. What happens here is not that the names are not known, you can easily get them if enquire a little. Its just enough obfuscation since most of the angry mob types are not going to take the trouble of finding out unless a name was printed on the front page and they were hit over the head with it.
    • That's basically to protect the identity of the accused, prior to acquittal or conviction. Once they're convicted, they'll cheerfully use the full name.

      In this case, there is no doubt that Boris Floricic was Tron, and this injunction is solely to prevent the Floricic family being embarrassed by being associated with their criminal son. Well here's a thing, if they wanted to avoid embarrassment, perhaps they should have raised their child to be law abiding.
    • And if he is convicted of the crime is he still refered to in a semi-anonymous way, or do they give the name? Would it be "Today Santa C. was convicted of...", or "Today, Mr Sinter Klaas, a Dutch native visiting germany for the holidays, was found guilty of..."
    • Ok, I looked this up in the German laws. I could only find it in German so I won't bother with a link.

      Apparently, there has always been an absolute right of a person to protect their honor, reputation, and likeness. However, in 1954 it was written into German law. "Persönlichkeit Rechte" "Personal Rights"

      The laws are extremely long and complicated but I was able to find a summary at www.anwalt.de. Anwalt is German for attorney. It would seem that the first initial of the last name is used in orde
  • Did you know that the Tasaday were a real tribe in the Philippines - and not a hoax? Wikipedia says so [wikipedia.org].

    If Wikipedia has proven anything, it's that all of recorded history has been politicized. An illusion of objectivity is the ultimate goal that humans work toward - not truth.

    Think of the sinister implications... particularly with a country like Germany and their past.

  • Instead of a translation: (Score:5, Informative)

    by greppling (601175) on Thursday February 09 2006, @09:34AM (#14676853)
    Some facts from the article not mentioned in the summary:

    This decision isn't final yet, the parents will most likely appeal.

    The crucial argument in the court's decision seems to have been that the personal rights of the parents were not violated, since they could not be identified by their last name. This is actually disputable, their name is pretty unique in Germany. (A search in the phone directory didn't turn up anyone with the name.)

    The court did not consider the mentioning of the name a violation of Tron's own personal rights.

    ("Personal rights" is my translation by me of "Persoenlichkeitsrechte", which is technical term in German law speak. Maybe "Right to personal privacy" would be a better translation.)

    • Correction: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wikipedia publishes what the people submit.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.