Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules

Wikimedia has to delete passages in Wikipedia articles if they turn out to be false, the court said
  • (IDG News Service)
  • — 27 November, 2013 14:19

The Wikimedia Foundation is liable for the contents of Wikipedia articles but does not have to fact check the contents before they are published, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ruled, a spokesman said Wednesday.

The appeals court ruled against Wikimedia in a libel case in early October but the detailed verdict was only published recently on the court's website. In the German legal system it often takes several weeks for a written ruling to be published.

Articles on Wikipedia are written and altered by third parties and not checked by Wikimedia, which owns the site. Nonetheless, Wikimedia has a certain responsibility for the contents of those articles, the court ruled.

While Wikimedia does not have to check beforehand whether the contents of a Wikipedia article are true, it has a duty to check if somebody complains about the article, the court ruled. If someone complains about statements in an article, Wikimedia has to check them and if necessary remove the passages, the court said.

The libel case was brought by a man only identified as "H," who owns a local TV station, according to the verdict. A German Wikipedia article stated that he had made the Hitler salute on television, and that he had trivialized sex with children in a counseling session. The article also stated that he intimidated his employees, subjected them to "brainwashing" and alleged that there was a "cult-like" atmosphere in the workplace, according to the verdict.

According to H, all these statements were false. He wanted the passages removed from Wikipedia, the verdict said.

The Wikipedia article was based on a newspaper article and the court noted that by reproducing it on Wikipedia, the allegations were spread, said court spokesman Stefan Schüler in an email. It is important to note that Wikimedia was not found liable for all reproduced statements, he said. Only the passages about the Hitler salute and the trivialized child sex remark were banned, not the parts about brainwashing and intimidation, he said.

"One must distinguish between facts and opinions. Facts can be determined. Opinions are opinions," Schüler said. "During the trial it was undisputed that the factual allegations were untrue," he said.

Wikimedia needs to start checking articles when factual contents are disputed but the court did not give any guidelines about how Wikimedia should do so, Schüler said. However, standard criteria for reporting on suspects in legal cases apply to Wikileaks articles, Schüler said. These standards are generally considered to include the presumption of innocence of a suspect in cases where a verdict has not yet been reached.

The court also did not specify any criteria for sources against which a disputed article has to be checked, Schüler said. This was not covered in the current case because it was undisputed that the factual allegations were false, he said.

Wikimedia was ordered to delete the false passages. If it does not comply, a punishment procedure can be brought against the company, Schüler said.

Wikimedia Germany did not respond to a request for comment.

Loek is Amsterdam Correspondent and covers online privacy, intellectual property, open-source and online payment issues for the IDG News Service. Follow him on Twitter at @loekessers or email tips and comments to loek_essers@idg.com

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Loek Essers

IDG News Service
Topics: Wikimedia Foundation, internet, wikipedia
Comments are now closed.

Latest News Articles

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Compare & Save

Deals powered by WhistleOut
WhistleOut

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?