Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
Remove ads
The Wikimedia Foundation has been involved in several lawsuits, generally regarding the content of Wikipedia. They have won some and lost others. In the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation typically wins defamation lawsuits brought against it due to protections that web platforms receive from laws like Section 230.[1][2] However, in cases in Europe and other countries, courts may rule otherwise. The Wikimedia foundation often ignores these orders, and countries cannot reach across borders to enforce any ruling. India, in particular, is the only country that has forced Wikimedia to remove an entire article from Wikipedia[3] and also threatened to block access to the site in the country in a separate case.[4]
This listing is not meant to be exhaustive, and only includes notable cases.
Remove ads
Outcomes not in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation
Summarize
Perspective
In May 2011, Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, obtained a court order in Great Britain, where he owned property, against the Wikimedia Foundation, The Denver Post and WordPress.com to compel them to reveal the identity of persons who he claimed had anonymously defamed him on Wikipedia and the other two websites. However, legal experts said that the order was probably unenforceable in the United States.[5][6] Initially, the Foundation agreed to give the information to Bacon's solicitors,[7] but later asserted that it would cooperate only with a court order in the U.S. It said, "we do not comply with foreign subpoenas absent an immediate threat to life or limb."[5] Automattic, which owns WordPress.com, said Bacon would need a court order but agreed to remove any defamatory material from its websites.[7]
In March 2015, in Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA, the Wikimedia Foundation, along with other groups, sued the National Security Agency over its upstream mass surveillance program.[8] After further rulings in multiple courts including the District Court and Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and invoked the state secrets privilege, which ruled for the NSA, ending the litigation.[9]
In January 2019, a court in Germany ruled against the Wikimedia Foundation, prompting it to remove part of the history and the allegedly defamatory content in the German Wikipedia about professor Alex Waibel.[1][2] The Wikipedia article's content was ruled defamatory because the link supporting its claims was no longer active, a phenomenon known as link rot.[10][11]
In 2021, Portuguese businessman Caesar DePaço sued the WMF over his article, demanding removal of information he found "defamatory", as well as mention of his donation to the far-right CHEGA party.[12] In September 2023, the Supreme Court of Portugal found in favour of DePaço,[13] which was reaffirmed in January 2024.[14]
In 2023, French businessman Laurent de Gourcuff engaged in litigation against the Wikimedia Foundation in order to force them to reveal the IP address of a French Wikipedia editor who added content about Gourcuff that he found defamatory.[15] The WMF refused to hand over information regarding the user, resulting in repeated fines by the court.[16][15]
Remove ads
Outcomes in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation
Summarize
Perspective
The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately prevailed in a controversy in Germany over using the full name of a deceased hacker known as Tron. On 14 December 2005, his parents obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the wikipedia.org domain.[17] On 9 February 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned.[18] The plaintiffs appealed to the Berlin state court, but were turned down in May 2006.[19]
John Seigenthaler, an American writer and journalist, contacted Wikipedia in 2005 after his article was edited to incorrectly state that he had been thought for a brief time to be involved in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and of Bobby Kennedy. The content was present in the article for four months.[20][21] Seigenthaler called Wikipedia a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" and criticized the Communications Decency Act's protection of Wikipedia, which is why the case was dropped.[20][22]
In 2007, three French nationals sued the Wikimedia Foundation when an article on Wikipedia described them as gay activists.[23][24] A French court dismissed the defamation and privacy case, ruling that the Foundation was not legally responsible for information in Wikipedia articles.[24] The judge ruled that a 2004 French law limited the Foundation's liability, and found that the content had already been removed.[23][24] He found that the Foundation was not legally required to check the information on Wikipedia, and that "Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature."[24] He did not rule on whether the information was defamatory.[23][24]
In January 2008, Barbara Bauer, a literary agent, sued the Wikimedia Foundation in New Jersey Superior Court for defamation.[25][20][26] She claimed that a Wikipedia entry branded her the "dumbest" literary agent.[20] The case was dismissed because of the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.[26]
In 2008, professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller, who felt that he was defamed on Wikipedia, said that he did not sue Wikipedia because he was told that his suit would not prevail, in light of Section 230.[27] He sued the Miami firm from whose computers the edits were made, but later dropped the case.[28]
In July 2010, the FBI sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia.[29] The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue. In reply, Wikimedia counsel Mike Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website.[30] He defended Wikipedia's actions and refused to remove the seal.[31][needs update]
In June 2014, Yank Barry filed a defamation lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors.[32][33] He withdrew the suit in July 2014.[34][additional citation(s) needed][further explanation needed]
In 2016, Sorin Cerin sued the administrators of Romanian Wikipedia in Romanian courts, claiming "patent falsities".[35] The trial ended in 2021; the plaintiff lost the case.[36]
Remove ads
Ongoing litigation
Summarize
Perspective
In July 2024, the Indian news agency Asian News International sued for what it deemed defamatory allegations in the English Wikipedia article about the company. The Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had been accused of having served as a "propaganda tool" for the incumbent Indian government.[37] The court has asked that WMF reveal the identities of the editors who conducted the controversial edits, and WMF has agreed to comply.[38][39] Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation opened in Delhi High Court in August 2024[40][41] with WMF being cited for contempt of court in September and ordered back to court in October.[42] On October 21, 2024, the article page regarding the ongoing court case (though not the article about ANI itself) was blanked and access to editing blocked by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the ongoing lawsuit.[3][43] A number of authors have expressed concern about the case threatening freedom of speech in India.[44][45] On 28 October, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the court's request to disclose the identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page.[46] An arrangement was reached in the High Court on 11 November to have the foundation serving the summons papers to the involved users as an intermediary while disclosing the email identities of the users under sealed cover to the judge, which would still protect the privacy of the individuals for the time being.[47][48] On 17 March 2025, a two-judge bench, consisting of A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea filed by WMF against the article takedown order by the Delhi High Court. It took note of the fact that matter involved freedom of media and questioned the High Court on why it was "so touchy" about the subject.[49] The panel questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism; requiring the removal of content because of criticism may not be correct. At the same time, the judge also stated that the order was about press freedom. Today it was Wikipedia, tomorrow it could be someone else. It was "ironic" that an organization that relied on press freedom (referring to ANI) censored content on Wikipedia.[50][51][52] On 2 April, the Delhi High Court ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content, remove the article's protected status, and "restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency".[53]
In 2024, Tsai Eng-meng brought a civil lawsuit against Wikimedia Taiwan chapter after editors on Chinese Wikipedia reverted his edits relating to content that reflected his pro-China stance on the biographical article about himself. Tsai believed that the content injured his reputation and personality rights, and filed the lawsuit to compel Wikimedia Taiwan to allow him to edit the article. Wikimedia Taiwan rebutted that they do not operate and administrate Chinese Wikipedia; Tsai was reverted by the Chinese Wikipedia administrators who considered his edits disruptive; he was free to edit in the first place and was not prevented by Wikimedia Taiwan from editing. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2024 after the court found that Wikimedia Taiwan had no control over Chinese Wikipedia and also did not prevent Tsai from editing. The case is still on appeal as of 2024.[update][54][55]
In the United Kingdom, the Wikimedia Foundation initiated a legal challenge regarding Wikipedia's categorisation under the Online Safety Act 2023. The law, which was designed to combat trolling, requires sufficiently large websites to collect identifying information about its user identities or to provide functionality that enable users to block other users.[56]
Remove ads
See also
References
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads