How Wikipedia resists the controversial 'right to be forgotten' ruling

In a move to resist the European Union's controversial 'right to be forgotten' ruling from May, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has begun listing removed articles that affect its Wikipedia pages. 

|
Gary Cameron/REUTERS
Wikipedia webpage in use on a laptop computer is seen in this photo illustration taken in Washington, January 17, 2012.

Wikipedia fought back against Europe's "right to be forgotten" by listing the online encyclopedia's articles removed from search results, snubbing a court ruling that allows people to stop personal information appearing under Internet searches.

The Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that runs the free online encyclopedia, said on Wednesday that it had received notices from search engines affecting more than 50 links to Wikipedia pages.

In its first public statement against the ruling from Europe's top court in May confirming that people can stop irrelevant or outdated personal information from appearing under searches for their name, the foundation said it would publish each notice for the removal of a link to a Wikipedia page.

"Accurate search results are vanishing in Europe with no public explanation, no real proof, no judicial review, and no appeals process," wrote Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation on its blog.

"The result is an Internet riddled with memory holes - places where inconvenient information simply disappears."

The "right to be forgotten" has divided experts and pitted privacy campaigners against defenders of free speech, who argue that the ruling will lead to people whitewashing their past.

However, search engines are required to take into account the public's interest in knowing certain information about famous or public figures when evaluating removal requests, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) said a balance must be struck between the freedom of information and privacy.

Also, the person requesting that the link be removed is not necessarily the one named in the article, but could be one whose name appears in the comment section.

"The disclosure of the link alone is not too helpful as you have no idea what name on the page asked for link to come down," said Lilian Edwards, a professor of Internet law.

"LINK CENSORSHIP"

Wikimedia had received five notices affecting over 50 links across the British, Italian and Dutch versions of Wikipedia by Wednesday, it said.

Google, which handles around 90 percent of searches in Europe, had received over 90,000 requests under the right to be forgotten by July 18 and was accepting over half of them.

The search engine giant has been criticized for notifying publishers that a link to their website has been removed, a method that can draw unwanted attention to the page in question and feed speculation over who made the request.

"Our concern is that these notifications generate a lot of confusion, and in some ways undercut the request itself by bringing people's names back into the open," Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, who heads France's privacy watchdog and the WP29 group of EU national data protection authorities, said in an interview with Reuters.

Google says it is necessary to ensure transparency and already notifies the owners of websites that are removed from search results because of copyright infringements.

Wikimedia said it was posting the removal notices in the interests of free speech and transparency.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How Wikipedia resists the controversial 'right to be forgotten' ruling
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2014/0806/How-Wikipedia-resists-the-controversial-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe