Icon: enlarge
Judgment against Wikipedia author: "Leaving the standard of objectivity in a relevant way"
Photo: SASCHA STEINBACH / EPA-EFE / Shutterstock
The celebrations for the 20th birthday of Wikipedia are just over - a new judgment throws a bad light on the online encyclopedia.
The Koblenz regional court has sentenced a long-time Wikipedia author to pay 8,000 euros in damages to an Icelandic composer because he was not only offended by the article about himself, but also asserted tangible business disadvantages due to the prominent placement of Wikipedia in search engines.
In addition, there are legal costs of several thousand euros for the defendant.
However, the decision is not yet final.
The Wikipedian with the pseudonym »Feliks« had aimed specifically at making the plaintiff appear as an implausible conspiracy theorist.
He described the Icelander as "the main representative of anti-Zionism".
Because of several articles on the sanctions against Iraq, the Wikipedia author suggested that the composer was close to the dictator Saddam Hussein.
He also questioned the composer's professional qualifications.
For example, he wrote that one of his works had never been performed or that he had meanwhile turned to composing practice pieces for children.
The court found that all of these allegations were false or misleading.
A man on a mission
The judge saw this as a violation of general personality rights and assumed that the Wikipedia author will act with intent.
He had already attracted attention in the past due to one-sided processing that had also occupied the Hamburg district court.
Although there could be no completely neutral Wikipedia article, "Feliks" had "left the standard of objectivity in a relevant way" and used the encyclopedia as a kind of "pillory of convictions", according to the Hamburg judgment, from which the Koblenz district court quoted in detail.
Therefore, it went beyond the claim for damages of at least 5,000 euros.
The decision has now made it to the discussion pages of Wikipedia.
Some Wikipedians demand the immediate banning of the controversial author, because as a "man on a mission" - as a "man on a mission" - he grossly disregarded the Wikipedia rules.
Others take a defensive stance as they generally reject external pressure on the encyclopedia.
Still others are looking for a new compromise solution: the now adjusted version of the article is too uncritical and paints a too positive image of the Icelander.
The composer was part of a tour group that paid a controversial visit to the then Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2012.
The contentious Wikipedia
The case sheds light on how the work on Wikipedia works in practice.
Anyone who thinks of writing an encyclopedia as a thoroughly sober and solid affair should be surprised at the first attempt at writing how confrontational the process is.
No coincidence: Wikipedia is partly based on controversy.
In principle, anyone can write any information on Wikipedia - and anyone else can emphasize it again.
A basic idea of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: The equality of arms should ensure that the different camps agree on an article version that appears at least fair to all sides.
With 2.5 million articles in the German Wikipedia edition alone, such a constant negotiation process cannot be organized.
That is why there are now automated spam filters that sort out attempts at vandalism by bored students.
Posts by unregistered users must first be waved through by a Wikipedia author before they are released for the public.
This is particularly important because many offers like Google adopt and disseminate claims from Wikipedia.
In addition, there are relevance criteria that are intended to ensure that there are enough credible sources for every article in Wikipedia.
At the same time, Wikipedia's own technocracy has developed: Anyone who has been writing articles for years, deleting spam and participating constructively in discussions can count on a leap of faith from other Wikipedia authors and administrators who are responsible for blocking users, among other things are.
According to Wikipedia statistics, between 6,000 and 7,000 authors are active in Wikipedia with several articles every month.
The lion's share of the work, however, sticks with relatively few people.
Court recognizes Wikipedia rules
Does the ruling from the Moselle lead to a rethink in Wikipedia?
John Weitzmann, Head of Politics and Law at Wikimedia Germany, sees no general need for action.
"The Koblenz regional court referred to the Wikipedia community rules in its judgment - which shows that these rules are in order in the eyes of the court." In any case, the Wikimedia association, based in Berlin, has only limited influence on what happens in Wikipedia.
In extreme cases, articles from the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco will be deleted.
In the past, the association supported Wikipedia authors in court, for example when it comes to fundamental copyright lawsuits.
Not this time: “Wikimedia Germany was not involved in the case,” says Weitzmann.
The fact that Wikipedia authors have been active for years under a pseudonym and, under certain circumstances, not available for a lawsuit, is part of the reality of Wikipedia.
"We are in favor of a strong pseudonym protection, because inadmissible pressure is repeatedly exerted on Wikipedia authors," says Weitzmann.
Many Wikipedians also only speak to journalists under pseudonyms, especially when it comes to topics such as the fight against corona.
Time and again, some groups try to publicly denounce Wikipedia authors and even to blacken them to their employers if they do not agree with the Wikipedia version of certain events.
If you feel that you are being treated improperly by the community, you can contact a voluntary support team by e-mail, but you should also take a look at the Wikipedia rules beforehand, which are particularly detailed in the articles about people who are still alive.
Despite the sometimes chaotic discussions, Wikipedians can often keep the upper hand in disputes.
The German Football Association only apologized to the online encyclopedia last week because a PR agency had pimped up Secretary General Friedrich Curtius' Wikipedia entry without the commissioned work having been disclosed.
Icon: The mirror
