Βικιπαίδεια:Είμαστε όλοι Diu/en

Note: This is an approximate translation, not intended to correspond 100% with the Greek text.

Wikipedia:We are all Diu

Two years ago, the academic and politician Theodore Katsanevas sent a notice to the Greek Wikipedia user Diu, demanding the removal of a part of the content of the biographical article about him and asking for the user's identifying information so that he could pursue legal remedies against the presumed offenses against his person. The controversial content was a reference in the article to the will of Andreas Papandreou, then Katsanevas' father-in-law, in which Papandreou characterized Katsanevas as a "shame" for his family.

Katsanevas targeted Diu because he was the one that added the information to the article. In accordance with the principles and policies of the Greek Wikipedia, Diu had documented the information easily enough, since a large part of the press corps had covered the topic. Katsanevas also sent a letter to GFOSS (the Greek Free Open Source Society), believing that it has some institutional connection with Wikipedia. The organization declared sraight away that it bears no responsibility (which is in fact true) and directed Katsanevas to the user and to the Wikimedia Foundation (which maintains the infrastructure on which Wikipedia and its sister sites run).

On January 26, 2013, a lawsuit was instigated on behalf of Theodore Katsanevas against the user Diu and GFOSS. In the filing Katsanevas accuses Diu, among other things, of having distorted the truth with malice, making flagrantly unjust and malicious references to his person and distorting and tarnishing with malice his biography. He asks the Greek courts to impose a fine for damages of 200,000 euros (with interest from the time of the filing of the suit), as well as imprisonment of Diu for a year. In the case of non-compliance, i.e. if the content is not removed though it has been so ordered, he asks that Diu and GFOSS be required to pay a fine of 30,000 euros for every day of the violation and to impose on Diu a month's imprisonment. The case has been set for trial January 21, 2016 in the Multi-member Court of the First Instance of Athens.

A few days ago a process server gave Diu a notice of a hearing on a preliminary injunction which would require the temporary removal from the Wikipedia article of the phrases Katsanevas claims insult his honor and person, until the case is adjudicated, and would mandate that the defendants also cover his legal fees. Tomorrow, February 12 2014, Diu is called to appear before the judge in service at the Evelpidon courts for a hearing on the preliminary injunction.

It is of course a fact that even if a preliminary injunction is issued in accordance with Katsanevas' desires, (something extremely doubtful), it's impossible for the user to go ahead and remove the controversial phrases, since he can't violate the policies of Wikipedia without facing the corresponding consequences (reversion of his change and possibly being blocked from editing on Wikipedia). But beyond that, the same content can be republished by any other user. It's well known that Wikipedia articles are open content and can be edited by anyone, without approval by some editorial committee. It's clear from the history of the article that on several occasions lawyers or other persons working on behalf of Katsanevas have removed the content which he finds objectionable, but the content has been restored or even expanded upon by other users besides Diu. This makes it clear that even if a particular user was compelled legally or otherwise to remove content from or to modify an article, that would not obligate anyone else to refrain from restoring the content or the article to its previous form.

This is not the first time that a politician has demanded by legal means or with the threat of legal action the alteration of his or her biographical information to conform with what he or she approves. It is however the only case in which a politician has actually brought a case to court against a specific user. The practice of Katsanevas suing a Wikipedia user, ignoring the plain references and the newspapers themselves given as reference, the contents of which is available on the Internet, and which is used as the basis for the article, seems at least unacceptable and hypocritical.

In this particular case, the Wikipedia user acted on the basis of the rules of the project, having justified his actions in the relevant discussions about the article. Beyond the personal issue, about which the community is quite optimistic that there will be a positive outcome, we believe the specific lawsuit is aimed generally at the project, even though only one user happens to be in the place of the accused. We are all Diu!