Wikipedia is not responsible for the content that publishes - Reuters

Into important precedent for the Italian web, to the court of Rome, the encyclopedia
is not responsible for errors, omissions or defamation in vocals, a principle that can apply to others?

Into The court of Rome has decided: Wikipedia can not be held civilly responsible for what is published within its entries. The decision – announced Wednesday by a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation – could be not only a significant decision in favor of the largest online encyclopedia, but also an important precedent in Italy for freedom of publication on the Internet. Let’s see the facts.

Into On 30 January, Cesare Previti, a former defense minister of the Berlusconi government, called an action against the Wikimedia Foundation arguing that the voice on him was a “pseudo-journalistic gossip fueled by the work of individuals [...] absolutely unreliable,” and considering the foundation responsible for unlawful because “Wikipedia would not exist without the defamatory publication.” Previti claimed compensation at the discretion of the judge and also a penalty for each day of delay from the removal of information deemed de famatory. The object version of lawsuit is still accessible online, via the timeline on each page.

Into The judgment of the court of Rome, however, has decided against former parliamentary Wikimedia is not responsible for content publishing, because it does not process them but is limited to providing a tool, explaining clearly how to use. The foundation that runs Wikipedia is then treated in all respects by the court to a web space provider, not having been “proven [...] and in the management of the encyclopedia [...] shall engage in activities other than those hosting provider “.

Into While the measure confirms a trend already spread at international level, it is the first time in Italy that a judgment Wikimedia explicitly absolves from any civil liability, and opens important scenarios for associations and individuals who run blogs, forums, social networks and other platforms that only give space to the free expression of users, without intervening in content.

Into The ruling, in fact, not only establishes the existence of a clear distinction between space provider and author of the content – equating de facto management of a given site to a hosting service – but also says that in this case the supplier can not be attributed to either a responsibility by omission (ie for failing to investigate those published by others), since – in the case of Wikipedia – there is also a declaration of non-liability. To be responsible or partly responsible for any defamation is not so who provides the platform, but rather the individual user who published them. According to the court is the open nature of the site to exclude ‘the obligation to guarantee, “that is a” balance left in the possibility for anyone to edit its content and to request the cancellation. ”

Into To comment on the story we reached Marco Berliri, the study Hogan Lovells lawyer who handled the lawsuit on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Victory in Case v. Previti. Wikimedia is an important result for Wikimedia and probably one of the first sentences of this kind in Italy. What is your opinion on the matter?

Into’m obviously extremely pleased, not so much from the point of view of “personal” but because I believe that this ruling helps to shed light on the (lack of) responsibility of those who manage a platform for sharing of content.

More specifically

?

Into The judge has clearly denied that Wikimedia can be held liable for content posted by third parties, describing his work as a hosting provider, which is limited to offering the public the technological structure as a simple platform on which to publish content. It is certainly not an isolated earlier, but it is very important because it is the first in Italy regarding Wikipedia.

And if the tort, defamation, for example, is there really?

Into The network is not a free port where there are no rules, as some would have us believe. However it is important that responsibility is ascribed to the author of any unlawful conduct, not those who simply make available the technological tool. If this were not so, there would be no blogs, video sharing platforms, or social media.

The court stated that Wikimedia is not responsible for the content, because its system allows free editing and modification of information. He believes that this ruling could have an impact broader than the protection of freedom of expression on the Internet in Italy?

Into Certainly. The judge first of all given the status of hosting providers – and not a content provider – Wikimedia esonerandola from liability for the content hosted. In support of this, pointed out that this exclusion of liability is balanced by the possibility, accorded to any person, to contribute to the compilation of the encyclopedia entries and to rectify its contents. I believe that this decision represents an important precedent not only for Wikimedia but for all platforms that host content created by third parties: the Court of Rome has in fact shown that can not be recognized hosting provider even a liability for concealment. I want to emphasize how the principles are widely established in other jurisdictions and confirmed by numerous precedents of the European Court of Justice. I hope that other similar measures confirm this address in Italy.

Into The counterparty has thirty days to appeal the possible appeal, but the foundation has already an nounced battle: “if Mr. Previti were to opt for the appeal, the Wikimedia Foundation intends to oppose the appeal with all her strength” .