The court's reasoning for why they have jurisdiction was outlined here: https://thewikicabal.com/2019/01/20/waibel-v-wikimedia/

This is troubling because there's nothing preventing a Chinese court from claiming jurisdiction over the page on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Of course that request will be thrown out because, well... it's China, but with the direction EU's taking, it's only a matter of time before western European countries start sending more of these takedown requests.

I don't believe they comply with every edict from the likes of Turkey or China. Perhaps it's related to taking donations from Germany, or perhaps they want to be able to lobby its government and the EU without appearing to be a criminal organization.

> perhaps they want to be able to lobby its government and the EU without appearing to be a criminal organization.

It's interesting because they would only appear that way to the EU itself. For ordinary people, especially in the United States (though I suspect elsewhere), Wikipedia is far more of a respected organization than the European Union.

(To be clear, I mean that if Wikipedia says "what we're doing is okay" and the EU says "what you're doing is illegal", I think more people are going to believe Wikipedia. That's an interesting position to be in, whether it's ultimately useful to you or not.)

I think all governments would like to be able to enforce their laws on the Internet. The EU just has a bit more success than most due to the collective size and wealth of its member states. I don't know how to judge what ordinary people want. They seem generally happy to elect politicians who restrict free speech.

Maybe because Wikipedia is a community effort and it would be a loss if Germans could no longer contribute to it without aiding a criminal enterprise. At the very least German administrators would no longer be allowed, because they could be compelled by German courts to remove the entries.