De.wikipedia.org, Sensibility vs. Freedom of Speech Options

[stargelman]

Ok, some background on this story:

A lot of fuss has been made over the german language version of Wikipedia and legal proceedings against those that run that site because of an article in which the full first and family name of a hacker were named. This hacker used to go by the name of Tron and was a member of the famous Chaos Computer Club (sounds kinda silly, but those guys did a few real cool things). He commited suicide some years back, and his family doesn't want everyone to know his full name.

So, his friends and family tried to change that article, and the wiki folks decided to lock it. There was a lot of heated argumentation on the discussion page for that article between wikipedia people and friends of Tron (like one Andy Müller-Maguhn, pretty famous person here in Germany and member of the CCC as well).

When all of that remained fruitless, the friends/family of Tron decided to get an injunction against Wikipedia. Wikipedia then claimed to have never received it and didn't change the article. Then this whole unfortunate business went through a proper first-instance trial and Wikipedia won. The lawyer for the family has already declared he'll go for a revision.

So much for the background.


Now, the question is:

What is more important, uninterfered freedom of speech and information, or being sensible about matters that interfere with people's lives, given that the name of tron's family is pretty distinct? Should Wikipedia keep up their current position of total non-compliance or should they seek a compromise of some sort, acknowledging that not all information needs to be provided at all costs and that there is such a thing as privacy?

[Neela]

This is a tough subject with no simple answer. Clearly you can't have it both ways and you wouldn't want it just one way or the other. In the above story I think Wikipedia is in the right, because for me its just providing information. While this information may embarrass or cause discomfort to the family, it is still factual information as that is his name. It really isn't anything that someone couldn't find out if they really wanted to know.

For me privacy becomes more of a focus depending on the level of intrusion to obtain it. I disagree with the papparazzi for example. I don't know how celebrities deal with that. I also disagree with the whole self-installing spyware programs on your own personal computer that report any information whatsoever to an outside source.

I believe that most information that is factual should be okay for public display. That is just my opinion as knowing is always better than not knowing. However, every issue is unique and there are alot of issues in a gray area. However, I feel that if information could potentially harm someone I think it should not be available. For instance, reporters nested inside military units is a bad idea. The enemy could clearly recognize where they maybe and use it as info against them. Also say posting any information about underage abuse/rape victims would only cause them additional harm.

No easy answer either way on this one I am afraid.