Wikimedia's Transparency Report: Guys, We're A Wiki, Don't Demand We Take Stuff Down

from the good-for-them dept

Fri, Mar 9th 2018 3:25pm — Mike Masnick

Wikimedia, like many other internet platform these days releases a transparency report that discusses various efforts to takedown content or identify users. We're now all quite used to what such transparency reports look like. However, Wikimedia's latest is worth reading as a reminder that Wikipedia is a different sort of beast. Not surprisingly, it gets a lot fewer demands, but it also abides by very few of those demands. My favorite is the fact that people demand Wikimedia edit or remove content. It's a wiki. Anyone can edit it. But if your edits suck, you're going to be in trouble. And yet, Wikimedia still receives hundreds of demands. And doesn't comply with any of them. Including ones from governments. Instead, Wikimedia explains to them just how Wikipedia works.

From July to December of 2017, we received 343 requests to alter or remove project content, seven of which came from government entities. Once again, we granted zero of these requests. The Wikimedia projects thrive when the volunteer community is empowered to curate and vet content. When we receive requests to remove or alter that content, our first action is to refer requesters to experienced volunteers who can explain project policies and provide them with assistance.

On the copyright front, they only received 12 requests. I actually would have expected more, but the community is pretty strict about making sure that only content that can be on the site gets there. Only 2 of the 12 takedowns were granted.

Wikimedia projects feature a wide variety of content that is freely licensed or in the public domain. However, we occasionally will receive Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices asking us to remove content that is allegedly copyrighted. All DMCA requests are reviewed thoroughly to determine if the content is infringing a copyright, and if there are any legal exceptions, such as fair use, that could allow the content to remain on the Wikimedia projects. From July to December of 2017, we received 12 DMCA requests. We granted two of these. This relatively low amount of DMCA takedown requests for an online platform is due in part to the high standards of community copyright policies and the diligence of project contributors.

This is actually really important, especially as folks in the legacy entertainment industry keep pushing for demands that platforms put in place incredibly expensive "filter" systems. Wikipedia is one of the most popular open platforms on the planet. But it would make no sense at all for it to invest millions of dollars in an expensive filtering system. But, since the whining from those legacy industry folks never seems to recognize that there's a world beyond Google and Facebook, they don't much consider how silly it would be to apply those kinds of rules to Wikipedia.

Also interesting is that Wikipedia has now been dealing with some "Right to be Forgotten" requests in the EU. It notes that in the six month period covered by the transparency report they received one such request (which was not granted):

rom July to December of 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation received one request for content removal that cited the right to erasure, also known as the right to be forgotten. We did not grant this request. The right to erasure in the European Union was established in 2014 by a decision in the Court of Justice of the European Union. As the law now stands, an individual can request the delisting of certain pages from appearing in search results for their name. The Wikimedia Foundation remains opposed to these delistings, which negatively impact the free exchange of information in the public interest.

I don't envy whatever person eventually tries to go after Wikimedia in court over a Right to be Forgotten claim -- though it feels inevitable.

There's more to look at in the report, but it is interesting to look over this and be reminded that not every internet platform is Google or Facebook, and demanding certain types of solutions that would hit all platforms... is pretty silly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: community, editing, takedowns, transparency report, wikipedia
Companies: wikimedia

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2018 @ 2:43pm

When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...
...there were many claims that they should not be taken seriously. In the meantime, the Wiki has been working hard to present more facts and less presumption. I think they are doing a good job at that, and refer to them often. I think their articles should be taken seriously, today, and if there is still some discord about a certain article, make your edit. If that edit is believable and verifiable it will be accepted. If it isn't...go suck an egg.

I would imagine that there are competing online encyclopedias that would take some issue with what Wikimedia posts, but then those articles are written by (usually) a single subject matter 'expert'. When only one person is involved with the description of some subject matter, there is an opportunity for bias. With many persons involved with a particular subject, that bias has a tendency to be minimized, except of course when Internet 'Public Relations' firms (or whatever they call themselves) become involved. Or, when employees of some company try to sway the narrative about their employers.

As to the 'right to be forgotten' thingy, let them forget in the EU. The rest of us have a right to know the actual history of some persons actions, and there is (at least today) not one damn thing the EU can do about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 3:39pm

But if you're a principal at a site, more easily forgotten!
https://heatst.com/world/flashback-champion-of-truth-jimmy-wales-edited-own-wiki-page-to-remove-link s-to-porn-industry/

Seems to be a double standard. -- Green Glenwald too, tries to forget his own porn-film "investment". -- OH, and let's not forget MR GOOGLE Eric Schmidt, who tweaks the "algorithm" out of sight to keep HIS "open marriage" shenanigans secret.

Anyway, as usual for masnicks, we HAVE ONLY Wikipedia's word for this, it's NOT INDEPENDENT AUDIT. You're a FOOL if believe that out of public sight, Wikipedia doesn't push the Establishment Elitist agenda with selective rules / edits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 3:40pm

Re: But if you're a principal at a site, more easily forgotten!
Only YOU would hate an online encyclopaedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 3:42pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 3:45pm

Re: But if you're a principal at a site, more easily forgotten!
Lol, your desperation is really embarrassing.

Or it would be if you were capable of embarrassment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave blevins (profile), 9 Mar 2018 @ 5:19pm

Forget it
Let requester petition the EU court because you'll only consider an "erasure" if it comes from the court -- they passed the "law" let them enforce it. And if you get one, block the requester, i.e. forget them !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 9 Mar 2018 @ 5:28pm

Anyway, as usual for masnicks, we HAVE ONLY Wikipedia's word for this, it's NOT INDEPENDENT AUDIT.

Do you think that Wikipedia should be required to have an independent audit? Although it's a non-profit it's still a corporation and according to you (I think it's you, anyways) corporations are supposed to serve the public interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re:
It's not surprising. Wikipedia was one of the major sites whose blackout helped raise awareness of SOPA, and got it rejected.

As a diehard advocate of SOPA, out_of_the_blue holds a very deep grudge against Wikipedia. The fact that it's a "free" encyclopedia viewable and usable by anyone is icing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2018 @ 7:39pm

These folk don't bother to explain why the material is incorrect, it probably isn't, they just do not want anyone to know about their dirty laundry. They should take some personal responsibility, like they tell everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Mar 2018 @ 1:15am

"I won't have to pay for it, why should I care?"
But, since the whining from those legacy industry folks never seems to recognize that there's a world beyond Google and Facebook, they don't much consider how silly it would be to apply those kinds of rules to Wikipedia.

There's also the fact that the ones pushing for said filters wouldn't be the ones paying for them, so why would they care how much they would cost to create, implement and run?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Captain Obvious, 10 Mar 2018 @ 5:03am

The Right to be Forgotten so easily becomes
the Right to be Streisanded, in SHOUTY CAPITAL LETTERS.

HELLO! HEY YOU OVER THERE, YOU, YES YOU!!!!!!. STOP LOOKING AT ME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Captain Obvious, 10 Mar 2018 @ 5:07am

Re: Forget it
The best "erasure" to come out of the EU in recent times is Vince Clark and Andy Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2018 @ 8:16am

I trust Wikipedia when it comes to empirical data, but don't trust it with anything involving people, controversies, politics, and history. Oh... and pages describing any kind of organization or group (especially corporations).

There's a lot more incentive to pay (or influence) people to either write those pages or make certain changes, which means pages with the above subject matter are too subject to being changed to show more bias than the neutral tone Wikipedia claims to strive for.

... And the musician discographies aren't bad.

Even if Wikimedia is being honest with its report, and it sounds like a good example of ignoring requests to remove online information, it doesn't change how Wikipedia is only as trustworthy as the editors and admins that work with it, who could be anybody promoting anyone's narrative or censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2018 @ 9:13am

Re:
You also disregard the references?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 10 Mar 2018 @ 10:34am

Re: When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...
"If that edit is believable and verifiable it will be accepted."

Clearly someone who hasn't tried to edit Wikipedia recently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 10 Mar 2018 @ 10:37am

Re: Re:
"You also disregard the references?"

Depends on the references, but sometimes absolutely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2018 @ 11:26am

Re: Re:
Just because an article has extensive references doesn't mean those references are accurate or reasonably factual. You have to vet the sources as much as the distillation of the sources. Taking things at face value with Wikipedia is just as unwise as taking traditional dead-tree encyclopedias as authoritative (hint: you shouldn't). They both have roughly the same accuracy statistics according to a published (2006) Nature study. It points out that while Wikipedia was (is?) roughly as accurate as Encyclopedia Britanica was, neither one of them are primary resource material. Which is why you'd get an "F" from college professors for listing any encyclopedia as a reference for scholarly thesis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2018 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. You don't cite the encyclopedia, you cite what the encyclopedia cites. If Wikipedia is missing a citation, or the citation is untrustworthy, then an editor can find a better reference or get rid of the untrustworthy information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2018 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Well - yeah.

Since it was not mentioned thought I'd ask simply because some people do not even realize they are there and possibly provide much detail not found the "summary".

Thank you professor obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toom1275 (profile), 10 Mar 2018 @ 4:22pm

Re: When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...
Your second paragraph sounds like it's describing Conservapedia - countering Wikipedia's repository of facts by being a tepository of bullshit.

Runas an echo chamber with one man as its arbiter of "truth."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 10 Mar 2018 @ 6:35pm

copyright law
If anything we write and then publish is copyrighted in the US can the writers be forced to alter their writings if it does not violate a law in their country.

I don't know what I am trying to say here, but many of these editors take pride in their work. Why should they diminish the impact of their work, or undermine their arguments because someone is ashamed of something they did.

Germany is ashamed of what Hitler did, should the rest world not know that there were Nazis in Germany during the 1930 -40s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 11 Mar 2018 @ 1:10am

filtering system

Wikipedia is one of the most popular open platforms on the planet. But it would make no sense at all for it to invest millions of dollars in an expensive filtering system.

Yet Wikipedia exclusively uses the most expensive filtering system (human brains). that happens also to be the only known effective one. (i.e. educating humans on the complexities of copyright and trusting them to make good choices).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ryuugami, 11 Mar 2018 @ 3:44am

Re: Re: When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...
Ugh, the display of cognitive dissonance behind Conservapedia should be designated the Eighth Wonder of the World.

"Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, therefore it's biased! We need an unbiased encyclopedia, which can be edited only by people I completely agree with!"

That degree of dogmatism is truly frightening, not to mention dangerous :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2018 @ 8:31am

Re: filtering system
That's why the legacy industries hate it, as human brains cannot be gamed like contentid can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toom1275 (profile), 11 Mar 2018 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re: When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...
It's like it describes a bizarro world, where both morality and the laws of nature are the polar opposite of how things are here in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2018 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: filtering system
"human brains cannot be gamed"

You'd think that, but then there's all the media hoopla about Russian meddling in elections with fake news and sponsoring protests to influence our elections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2018 @ 9:06am

Re: Re: Re: filtering system
Ahhhh - and what will really fry your mind is attempting to determine who is gaming whom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]