by CrowsNest » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:26 am
Kumi, There's been plenty of cases, both of people going after the WMF and editors.
There's no need for an actual legal action for the fear factor to be effective. Why do you think the Wikipediots freak out whenever anything even close to a legal threat is made on their servers? Because they know fine well the powerful effect of fear, and the critical threat it poses to their ability to retain editors.
The name of the game for critics is to educate editors that they are indeed solely legally liable for their edits, be they illegal or entirely legal (in the US), and indeed whether they comply with the ToU or local policy. And that the WMF is unlikely to provide them with much, if any, assistance, unless they can see a favourable outcome insofar as bolstering case law around Section 230.
When editors realise the subjective nature of US laws in areas like defamation, harassment and copyright, and when they realise the main operating model of the US legal system is not about who is right, but who has more money, that's when the fear factor really comes into play. Would anyone in their right mind make an edit if they weren't 99% sure it wouldn't attract the attention of a lawyer, vexatious or otherwise?
In that environment, the only people who throw caution to the wind are idiots, and you can't build an internet encyclopedia of any standard with just idiots. The current state of Wikipedia proves that.
On the flip side, potential litigants need to be educated as to the reality on the ground. As this Italian case showed, you get little sympathy if you don't at least try to engage with Wikipedia on their terms. But be smart, do only what is reasonable and necessary, do not get sucked into the bizarro world of what they perceive as right and moral or procedurally necessary. As such......
1. Make precisely one attempt to highlight the offending content, by posting a note in the talk page.
2. When 1. fails, typically because they don't even see it or just ignore it, then make precisely one attempt to fix the issue yourself by directly editing, making it clear who you are and what you are trying to do.
3. When 2. fails, most likely because some Wikiprat screams vandalism or COI, make precisely one effort to get the WMF to fix the issue, by sending a single email to Legal, which explains in simple terms what the issue is and your two failed attempts to fix it.
4. When 3. fails, that is when you start legal proceedings. At no point in steps 1. to 3. should you be anything but unfailingly polite and reasonable, and at no time make any mention of the law or pending legal action.
As Graf is showing, there's more chance of success in European courts if it actually comes down to legal judgements, but the WMF has of course always then simply hidden behind their tired old excuse that they only care about US law. So it should be emphasised to European based editors that they are unlikely to ever been seen as worth defending by the WMF.
Essentially, a Wikipedia editor is only ever truly on safe legal ground if they are doing something they are sure is totally legal under US law, and they themselves reside in the US. Even then, it might take a lot of money to defend oneself. And the WMF isn't half as protective of editors privacy as most assume, and the threat of the being dragged into a legal action is one of few reasons they will give you up.