Βικιπαίδεια:Είμαστε όλοι Diu/en: Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων
Περιεχόμενο που διαγράφηκε Περιεχόμενο που προστέθηκε
+wmf statement |
μ →Wikipedia:We are all Diu: GFOSS according to external link provided here |
||
Γραμμή 7:
Two years ago, the academic and politician [[Θεόδωρος Κατσανέβας|Theodore Katsanevas]] sent a notice to the Greek Wikipedia user [[User:Diu|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 ex-[[:en:Prime_Minister_of_Greece|Prime Minister of Greece]] [[:en:Andreas Papandreou|Andreas Papandreou]], who was at that time 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
On January 26, 2013, a lawsuit was instigated on behalf of Theodore Katsanevas against the user Diu and GFOSS.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
==Statement by the Wikimedia Foundation==
|