Short sighted cowards. The correct decision would have been to shut down Wikimedia Portugal, tell the Portuguese authorities to screw themselves and block Wikipedia if they wish, and to leave the article - if it was reporting verifiably sourced and relevant information - unchanged.

Instead, they demonstrated to all other infamous assholes of the world the easy steps to make Wikipedia roll over. Expect lots more similar lawsuits.

HN removed the hash after the link, pointing to the proper section. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#O...

Section name is "Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço".

Previous article about this:

"High stakes for the Wikimedia projects in Portugal: Fighting a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)"

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/07/27/high-stakes-for-the-wi...

---

SLAAP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

Fixed now. Thanks!

(fyi you can edit your link URLs for a while after initial posting to fix errors)

I tried, but it only allowed me to fix the title. Perhaps I was too slow.

You can also email mods directly at [email protected], though response times had been lagging (hopefully faster now that @tomhow is a public team member).

That's what I did :) I got a quick response and fix.

I am not a fan of censorship or violation of privacy. But if someone were defamed on Wikipedia, how would they pursue claims? Against Wikipedia itself? Or a contributor? And if so how would they know who the contributor is?

In theory there are two options: either the article is sources according to Wikipedias guidelines, in which case Wikipedia is not the problem, the source may be. If the article is not correctly sourced and makes up things that defame one, the article must be fixed. Although in reality, things are rarely that black or white.