THE foundation that operates Wikipedia has issued new criticism of the "right to be forgotten" ruling, calling it "unforgivable censorship".
Speaking at the announcement of the Wikimedia Foundation's first ever transparency report in London, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said the public had the "right to remember".
The Foundation's chief executive, Lila Tretikov, called the European Court of Justice ruling "a direct threat to our mission". The encyclopedia is free to view and edit by anyone, and has the aim of building the "sum of all human knowledge".
Following a court case in Spain between a man and Google over web links to a newspaper article about a real estate auction connected to his debt, the European Court of Justice implemented the "right to be forgotten". Since then Google has created an online form where individuals can ask for links in search results related to them to be removed.
Ms Tretikov said: "Our Transparency Report explains how we fight and defend against that. We oppose censorship. Recently, however, a new threat has emerged - the removal of links from search results following the recent judgment from the European Court of Justice regarding the right to be forgotten.
"This right that people may demand to have truthful information about themselves selectively removed from the published public record or at least make it more difficult to find. This ruling, unfortunately, has compromised the public's right to information and freedom of expression."
Google has already received more than 91,000 removal requests since the ruling came into effect, and as of July 18, 50 of those requests related to Wikipedia content.
"Links, including those to Wikipedia may now be quietly, silently deleted with no transparency, no notice, no judicial review and no appeals process. We find this type of compelled censorship unacceptable. But we find the lack of disclosure unforgivable," said Ms Tretikov.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article