In a letter obtained by The Free Press, Trump appointee Ed Martin accuses the Wikimedia Foundation of violating the law. Critics say his tactics are ‘grandstanding.’
Note: Original comment was a statement that Wikipedia should shift its rules enforcement approach to disruptive behaviors, instead of persons which have cause a lot of issues related to freedom of expression and liberty, particularly if they’ve refrained from further disruptive actions and are coming back to the encyclopedia on another account in good faith. Not sure why the mod is miscontruing it as a violation of Rule 1.
Except for those publicly visible sock-shaming and investigations pages, mark my words they’re going to be their Achilles heels one day. I’ve already asked some GDPR lawyers about it a long time ago and they agreed with me on that.
Wikipedia has always been subject to EU laws regarding personal dignity rights, like the right to be forgotten for example. The GDPR is not even relevant for 99% of those cases, and they predate GDPR and even then web by decades. There have been court cases about it, and Wikipedia complies with court decisions. It’s not an Achilles Heel it is the normal balancing act between the public’s right to be informed and the individual’s rights to a private life.
I’d take their answers over yours because they’re a well-known lawyers group who is super-into privacy rights activism and they even are saying that they are compiling instances of so-called “troll pages” on German Wikipedia so that they can file a complaint to the relevant DPAs one day.
In this context I think you need to be mindful of the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because something has not happened or has not been proven either way, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen in the future.
Not necessarily delete, just rein in, maybe not make it full public.
Fraud detection and security are legitimate interests and are exempt from GDPR consent.
Removed by mod
Note: Original comment was a statement that Wikipedia should shift its rules enforcement approach to disruptive behaviors, instead of persons which have cause a lot of issues related to freedom of expression and liberty, particularly if they’ve refrained from further disruptive actions and are coming back to the encyclopedia on another account in good faith. Not sure why the mod is miscontruing it as a violation of Rule 1.
You can keep personal data without consent for security and fraud detection. What Wikipedia does is perfectly compatible with GDPR.
Edit: case in point, Wikipedia is already subject to the GDPR, it’s a very high profile website, and it hasn’t been sued for violating it.
Except for those publicly visible sock-shaming and investigations pages, mark my words they’re going to be their Achilles heels one day. I’ve already asked some GDPR lawyers about it a long time ago and they agreed with me on that.
What are you on about bro? Fucking strange
Cope
You’re weird.
Wikipedia has always been subject to EU laws regarding personal dignity rights, like the right to be forgotten for example. The GDPR is not even relevant for 99% of those cases, and they predate GDPR and even then web by decades. There have been court cases about it, and Wikipedia complies with court decisions. It’s not an Achilles Heel it is the normal balancing act between the public’s right to be informed and the individual’s rights to a private life.
I’d take their answers over yours because they’re a well-known lawyers group who is super-into privacy rights activism and they even are saying that they are compiling instances of so-called “troll pages” on German Wikipedia so that they can file a complaint to the relevant DPAs one day.
In this context I think you need to be mindful of the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because something has not happened or has not been proven either way, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen in the future.