Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#291

Post by thimabi »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #173
thimabi wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the decision is wrong and unfair, and that it can be easily circumvented. That does not negate India’s right to legislate as it wants, nor does it prevent the Indian government from repressing citizens who choose to defy the law. It’s very unfortunate, but there is more to this case than simply negating a country’s jurisdiction or encouraging nationals to challenge it.

Cue an Australian Prime Minister saying "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" [0]. Yes, India can make ridiculous unenforceable laws, same as any country, but that doesn't actually do anything: Laws only matter when they can be enforced. In this case India trying to enforce a worldwide ban on this story is clearly unenforceable. And because…

I wouldn’t say this specific order is “clearly unenforceable” — after all, Wikipedia did remove what it was asked to remove globally, at least for now, didn’t it?

Yes, people can use VPNs to circumvent the order if the banned content is available elsewhere. But the law and judicial orders do more than just attempt to constrain behaviors.

Legally, those within the reach of India’s enforcement jurisdiction can be punished for disobeying the order. And since we’re all discussing things from a practical standpoint as well, we should keep in mind that states often uphold their interests abroad — even illegally. See the recent diplomatic row involving India and Canada, for instance.

I insist: both in legal and in practical terms, there is more to this case.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#292

Post by tomp »

tim333 wrote: post #281
pastage wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly fact check and do notable research for obscure Wikipedia articles. This is usually a no drama environment sure I have helped delete articles that later became notable and removed true facts lacking sources. Many of these things have fixed themselves over time. My biggest fear with Wikipedia is citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/ I have found one in a major news paper, this took three months to take down.

I edit a bit and it seems mostly accurate but I've followed covid origins for a while and the bit "While other explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence." isn't really true. There is evidence but for some reason they only want to cite papers from the scientific establishment saying the scientific e…

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#293

Post by ozozozd »

I think comments about how Wikipedia is backing down when they have the right to ignore the situation doesn’t do Wikipedia justice.

Getting Wikipedia banned in India, would hurt the people of India, who don’t have a say in the matter.

Sure, _some_ people will still figure out a way to access it. But, they are not even the people who most need Wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia’s trying to toe the line, preventing a country-wide ban, which would affect nearly a billion people, while still drawing attention to the situation is a pretty good strategy.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#294

Post by Paradigma11 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #39
fireflash38 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that there's a link between an extreme proliferation of misinformation and people wanting to control it?

No. Media has always been salacious nonsense — at least, judging from the 1880s English newspapers I’ve read as part of a research writing class: they’re full of complete lies about Jack the Ripper, for instance. Most of the discussion from government is using that perennial fact to justify suppressing true information — eg, suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story or people’s personal experiences with the COVID vac…

The Hunter Biden laptop story is highly improbable and has many typical hallmarks of Russian Disinformation. It also happens to be true. That is all there is to it.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#295

Post by pclmulqdq »

jampekka wrote: post #273
_el1s7 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propa…

> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process. Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.

Wikipedia is often wrong once you stray from mainstream topics. Subspecialties often have 1-2 super-contributors, whose blind spots and misunderstandings become part of Wikipedia. Plenty of articles also have no actual citations of their technical content.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#296

Post by kayxspre »

I am following this case closely to see how will WMF handle the issue when it goes to court, as the issue I am experiencing is similar to this one.

To describe briefly: There is a politician ("S") with articles in various languages of Wikipedia. One day, a group of people claiming to be the daughter of S ("T") tried to insert content that can be described as "trivial" and not relating to the work of S itself. Wikipedia editors, including myself, tried to argue to T that the content T inserted in an article about S isn't something that should be inserted, and despite the article of S including the criticism relating to lawsuit against S and his policy, the content was supported by books written by scholars. T simply argued that the content written in article of S is false, and threatened to bring lawsuit against editors involving in the process of keeping article of S up to standard. So far, T managed to file a police report against some editors, but no lawsuits were filed as far as I know. T also maintained presence in another forum, and I also argue that Wikipedia do not allow T to insert content of S in a manner T intended to. Instead, T decided to quote my reply out of context to defame me, causing me to send cease and desist notice. This prompted T to stalk my lawyer and publish the information, causing the lawyer and myself to discuss further action that should be taken in relation to this issue.

I have reported this incident to WMF 5 years ago, as the issue has been as long as that point. The issue on T and S has become so persistent such that I have proposed that our language of WMF project will ban any content relating to their family, as we do not want our volunteers to expose to legal liability for having to deal with frivolous lawsuit. This threatened lawsuit is one of the reasons I largely retired from writing content in Wikipedia, as I do not want accomplices of T and S to discover that I am active and that they will continue to harass me, though I'll still handle this behind the scenes if needed.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#297

Post by vehemenz »

dartharva wrote: post #124
typewithrhythm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As more normies got on the web more of it becomes about how to herd them. In the early days there was less gain from authoritarian actions, because you are more likely to be resisted by the users of any service. The current users don't know how to bypass restrictions, and are generally more numerous. Making authoritarian actions more valuable. Unfortunately this leads to previously useful sites declining.

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.

Mac apps have never bern restricted to the App Store, so I’m not sure the idea of “sideloading” makes sense to apply there. I still know what you mean though.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#298

Post by bborud »

pastage wrote: post #277
_el1s7 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propa…

I mostly fact check and do notable research for obscure Wikipedia articles. This is usually a no drama environment sure I have helped delete articles that later became notable and removed true facts lacking sources. Many of these things have fixed themselves over time. My biggest fear with Wikipedia is citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/ I have found one in a major news paper, this took three months to take down.

Out of curiosity: was it marked as possible citogenesis during that period? How did the situation resolve itself?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#299

Post by vehemenz »

ggm wrote: post #82
typewithrhythm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As more normies got on the web more of it becomes about how to herd them. In the early days there was less gain from authoritarian actions, because you are more likely to be resisted by the users of any service. The current users don't know how to bypass restrictions, and are generally more numerous. Making authoritarian actions more valuable. Unfortunately this leads to previously useful sites declining.

Dividing the world into normies and others is a very odd way to characterise widespread adoption of anything. I hesitate to use the neckbeard word, but it's got overtones. There are as many usefully curated sites, as sites where state actors curate content to hide the reptile led barcode truth from the normies.

Why? It’s a salient distinction when talking about mass-adoption of technology. Social dynamics change dramatically when the ratio of neckbeards to normies is upset. I don’t like these terms either, but “neckbeards and normies” has a nice alliterative quality.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#300

Post by notahacker »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #295
jampekka wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process. Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.

Wikipedia is often wrong once you stray from mainstream topics. Subspecialties often have 1-2 super-contributors, whose blind spots and misunderstandings become part of Wikipedia. Plenty of articles also have no actual citations of their technical content.

And some of the actual citations are to easily hyperlinked pop science articles and opinion pieces, sometimes actually replacing more accurate unsourced material...
Post reply on HN