] On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: 07 August 2014 01:33
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Cc: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Transparency and "right to
be forgotten" notices from search engines
>
> I see how you could read it
bject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Transparency and "right to be
forgotten" notices from search engines
I see how you could read it that way, but remember that to be included on
Wikipedia information should be notable and written in NPOV fashion, and the
BLP policy applies. If someo
I see how you could read it that way, but remember that to be included on
Wikipedia information should be notable and written in NPOV fashion, and
the BLP policy applies. If someone wants to contest information in their
BLP we have more subtle tools for handling disputes than pure removal,
althoug
I see I am not the only one who noticed what WMF Legal is doing, but I see it a
different way than Nathan. I see it as the WMF intimidating and threatening
those EU individuals who dare to to exercise their rights under the court's
ruling. Brigham and Paulson are basically saying "just try it. W
Thanks very much for this, Stephen and the legal team. I especially
appreciate that the WMF has decided to make public the specific
notifications of the use of the "Right to be forgotten" in the EU.[1] It's
interesting that the bulk of the suppression requests have come from a
single (ex?) Wikimedi
