Share interesting Technology news and links.
Rules:
To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:
More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.
Encouraged:
The order itself, as relayed by Joe Sutherland (the Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Trust and Safety Specialist), was to remove four specific categories of content as well as hand over limited data on eight editors who added it.
That last bit is the concerning part.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250620210340/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o
oh no, I accidentally posted an uncensored version of the article.
it looks like this is the objectionable part
On 11 January 2021, Portuguese news channel SIC Notícias broadcast a story asserting that DePaço had donated over ten thousand euros to Portugal's Chega party, and highlighted connections of several of its leaders to the DePaço Foundation.[13][14][15] This was controversial in Cape Verde due to Chega's opposition to immigration.[16][17] The day after the SIC story was aired, Cape Verdean Foreign Minister, who had recently appointed DePaço as Honorary Consul of Cape Verde to Florida, resigned.[18][19] DePaço was subsequently dismissed,[20] At the time he was appointed, Cape Verde already had a consul in Florida.[21]
His wife, Deanna Padovani-DePaço, remains as honorary consul of Cape Verde to New Jersey.[22] In an article in January 2021, the newspaper A Nação questioned the case of a husband and wife being both appointed to as consuls, writing "This is the first time Cape Verde has ever nominated a couple, husband and wife, to consulates in the same country, at once, to different states in the U.S.A".[22]
In late January 2021, DePaço's attorney Rui Barreira told Macao newspaper Ponto Final that DePaço was not dismissed from his position, but resigned on his own initiative on 12 January to avoid becoming a subject of controversy in Cabo Verde.[23] Barreira asserted that DePaço paid for the consular activities out of his own pocket.[23] He also said that DePaço's Wikipedia biographies had been the target of malicious editing.[23]
In June 2021, Portuguese-American newspaper LusoAmericano reported that DePaço was suing media outlets Sábado magazine, CMTV and SIC for what he called "attacks on his honour and image, due to the imputation of false facts," specifically that he is the "main financier of Chega," alleging that this claim had come to overshadow his career in international business in the minds of the Portuguese public.[24] DePaço said that he was never a financier of Chega, having made only one donation to the party within legal limits and otherwise uninvolved either as an activist or a party member.[24] He also filed criminal complaints against Cofina, which owns Sábado and CMTV, Cofina director Eduardo Dâmaso and journalist Alexandre Malhado as well as SIC information directors Ricardo Costa and Marta Reis and journalist Pedro Coelho.[24]
In January 2021, his lawyer edited the Wikipedia article about him and threatened legal action if Wikipedia did not remove information DePaço considered fraudulent; this included the mention of a one-time donation he made to CHEGA!, a right-wing political party in Portugal.[25][26] DePaço subsequently sued Wikipedia and editors.[27][28] The Wikimedia Foundation characterized this as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.[29] In December 2023, the Supreme Court of Portugal issued an order to Wikipedia demanding the removal of certain content that was deemed to be inaccurate. They also asked for the identification of the editors responsible for that content.[30] On January 25, 2024, the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) reconfirmed the decision. According to Sábado magazine, the "Conference of judges maintained a decision taken in November 2023. Editors of the businessman's page could be revealed and subject to legal action."[31
Damn, and Wikipedia even deleted its own history (or at least made it unavailable to regular users) so you can't go back and see what the article used to look like. I quite like the reasoning given by those who want to delete the article in its entirety tbh: if whatever this controversial information is can't be included, the article becomes blatant propaganda and is not worth keeping.
What's the article I can grab it from my backup
Yeah, it's such a shame The Way Back Machine exists ....
Wikipedia should itself link to þe Wayback machine.
+1 on þe comment about simply purging þe propaganda.
+1 on þe comment about simply purging þe propaganda
Log in to your Wikipedia account and contribute your thoughts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o
edit: I quite like this idea actually:
Replace with some kind of community statement. I agree that, if we are not allowed to have an article that complies with our own policies, we should not have any article at all; furthermore, editors risk liability in editing it now. However, if we're going to be so greatly departing from standard practice, we might as well take a stand. Putting together a note explaining the situation and our position would be better than just deleting or redirecting it. I suggest something like
Parts of this article were removed by the Wikimedia Foundation, which maintains Wikipedia's servers but is not responsible for its content, pursuant to a Portuguese court order. Wikipedia's volunteer community of editors has chosen to fully blank this article, as the court's order prevents us from complying with our own content policies and we do not wish to expose editors to liability if they inadvertently restore material that was ordered removed. The English-language Wikipedia community objects to the Portuguese courts' interference with our editorial independence and our mission to bring free knowledge to the world. A censored list of this article's past versions can be viewed in the history tab.
They should just delete everything in the article except the bit about them getting sued and having to remove content.
Is this some kind of "right to be forgotten" or expungement issue? What right does the court of Potugal have to order Wikipedia to delete information that may be true?
This is literally what the "right to be forgotten" was invented to do. It's a shitty "right" that exists to allow people to remove entirely factual reporting on information that they just don't like.