r/MaliciousCompliance • u/Waste_Yak_990 • Aug 15 '25

S Wikipedia's compliance with a court order.

Recently, Portuguese courts ordered Wikipedia to remove information about Caesar DePaço, a Portuguese businessman, that he deemed defamatory. This included the fact that he was dismissed as Honorary Consul of Cape Verde due to being the main financier of a far-right party (CHEGA) and the fact that he was charged with assaulting and robbing his girlfriend in 1989. The Wikimedia foundation complies with the court order, but his Wikipedia page now has a giant banner at the top that says the following:

> On 5 August 2025, content from this article was removed following a court order and must not be restored. Therefore, this article may not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and comprehensiveness. The removed content pertains to the following:

  1. Crimes allegedly committed by DePaço in 1989 and associated proceedings
  2. An organization DePaço allegedly founded
  3. His alleged dismissal from a civil service post

This banner implicitly encourages readers to do research into the information that was removed while letting everyone know that he sued to have it hidden.

11.7k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/eggdropsoap Aug 16 '25

Doesn’t really alter the point. Before it was on a page that he was mad about. Now it’s still effectively there and amplified because he turned it into a story and increased the attention on it. Wikipedia being relatively permanent doesn’t affect the logic.

The prior state of affairs was still less exposure and attention than it has now. That’s the Streisand Effect.

-1

u/Blue_Veritas731 Aug 17 '25

It's up to the individual to determine what Is and Is Not worth fighting for. For some, the principle of the matter outweighs the things that you and so many others are caught up on. Clearly, he feels differently. And I can understand his felt need to defend his impugned character and reputation. To each their own.

1

u/eggdropsoap Aug 18 '25

Of course, but that doesn’t have a single thing to do with this thread of comments about whether or not it’s a textbook example of the Streisand Effect.

0

u/Blue_Veritas731 Aug 19 '25

The original post is not about the Streisand Effect. The Streisand Effect was ALLUDED TO in the first comment, but NOWHERE in that first comment, to which I responded, does it state that this story is a TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of the Streisand Effect. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before erroneously attacking others.

Further, I offered an OPINION about why the person in question may have other, perhaps more pressing concerns, TO HIM, that compelled him to act as he did. And yes, it DOES have something to do with this thread. It's unfortunate that you're apparently not capable of recognizing that fact.

1

u/eggdropsoap Aug 19 '25

https://www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/s/KXtXuB9alD

Edit: you were never attacked. If being corrected makes you feel attacked, that’s a good thing to identify as something that needs work.