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

311–320 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#311

Post by 082349872349872 »

defrost wrote: post #156
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a wikipedia contributor (aroound 10-13 year old account) but not really serious, i have no kind words for wikipedia. The trolling and brigading is alive and well there. Thats the reason i stopped contributing. As my name would suggest, I live in a hotly contested part of the world and I have hundreds of pages in my watchlist. The amount of "bjp it cell" work they put in to portray their world view on Wikipedia is…

> bjp it cell I'm not Indian, I have no specific interest, I'm reading to pick up PoVs outside my own: BJP IT Cell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell a department of the Indian political party BJP that manages social media campaigns for the party and its members. According to Washington Post, 150,000 social media workers spread posts aimed at exploiting the fears of India’s Hindu majority across a vast networ…

with regard to our local much smaller propaganda machines, I think (by the fact that I can't reply there) you implicitly received an answer on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41953841

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#312

Post by bitexploder »

aaplok wrote: post #193
bitexploder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nomenclature could use some polish, but on HN we know they mean ability to bypass technological restrictions .

I am probably not part of the "we" you are talking about, but I had no idea "normie" means that, and I couldn't infer it from the comment. In fact I inferred a completely wrong meaning from that comment (something like "unenlightened"). Isn't "normie" a pejorative word (genuine question)?

It generally refers to a group of “normal” people. E.g in some context they are an “out” group that does not have some specialized knowledge or understanding that the “in” group would have. So it can be negative, but it generally just means someone inexperienced with the given topic area. There is an implication of otherness to using the term “normie” for the group using it but it is generally a pretty common term now. For example, imagine a bunch of policy wonks debating something in highly specific language and then someone asks “how would the normies react?” They mean, “how would people unfamiliar with the inner workings of political policy react?” Stuff like that.

It does have a negative connotation for that group in some contexts, but the usage is pretty common and softened now.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#313

Post by hangsi »

laxmin wrote: post #271
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #224

There are a lot of lessons to learn here 1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit 2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity c…

Streisand effect is oversold. It is temporary as heck. People will forget about anything, no matter the extent of Streisand effect and go onto the next tictok video or whatever. Who gives a flying fk anyways about an article on wikipedia.

This seems to have an obvious counterexample?

The name of the Streisand effect is from exactly the situation of a photo nobody cared about of Streisand's house from decades ago. The fact that it can be superficially referenced is evidence of its longevity.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#314

Post by boomboomsubban »

small_scombrus wrote: post #134
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrelated: >> "In my opinion, ANI and many media houses in India are partially controlled by incumbent party ( BJP ) either by incentives or manipulation, you can read about Income tax raid on BBC and some other media outlets for understanding their methods." By the Indian court standards, HN would be compelled to globally take down this topic.

In theory that the quote starts with "In my opinion" should protect HN in this scenario. Wikipedia almost exclusively words things as if they are know facts (because they usually are), which means they lose the safety of it being an opinion

The Wikipedia article in question says that ANI has been "accused of..."

Wikipedia is saying it's a known fact they've been accused of that, which this subthread shows is true as someone accused them of it.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#315

Post by spacebanana7 »

Xelbair wrote: post #280
stogot wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat

>To be fair, chromium has an inordinate amount of access. We all trust chromium’s developers but I’ve never met them. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat. >To be fair, Windows has an inordinate amount of access. We all trust Microsoft developers but I’ve never met them. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat. I can keep going to point out how flawed this line of reasoning is, especially t…

It’s weakly worse to trust your OS + Browser + third party, than just OS + Browser.

Moreover, small projects can be purchased more easily. See PIA. Users need to stay updated about ownership changes. It might be viable for us, but not for everyone.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#316

Post by avazhi »

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.

I’ll take Britannica any day.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#317

Post by nradov »

intended wrote: post #155
nradov wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these cases don't involve any actual harm beyond hurt feelings, so that's largely a red herring.

Not sure what cases you are referring to, but “Hurt feelings” in India have caused multiple riots, resulting in utter carnage, spilling over to years, decades longs strings of terrorism and reprisals against minorities. Feelings are the reason people get up to live in the morning. I get why we used to make that statement. In a way it’s about rationality mattering, and how feelings being hurt are different from actual…

That's the kind of lame excuse that fascists and elitists always resort to in order to increase their power and shut down speech they dislike. Freedom of expression is absolutely essential to the long-term future of humanity. If preserving that fundamental human right means that some emotionally fragile people start riots then so be it, that is an acceptable cost.

Your "fact" is merely a matter of opinion.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#318

Post by skhr0680 »

signatoremo wrote: post #303
pclmulqdq wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody says Wikipedia is perfect. The fact that you can point out that certain content are wrong proves what the GP said — “[It] has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process.” It’s also worth pointing out that it could be you who has blind spots, not the contributors. And if you’re certain they are wrong you can always try to correct them, or creat…

> And if you’re certain they are wrong you can always try to correct them, or create a competing topic?

I’ve tried that before, and it’s often not worth the time. The lord of the article is often an expert Wikipedia Editor and rules lawyer with endless time to argue and revert even when they have no expert or even basic knowledge about the subject.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#320

Post by dylan604 »

riffraff wrote: post #180
chris_wot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If adblockers have a huge amount of access, then consider how much access ads themselves have. uBlock Origin is open source.

They have less access? When I visit my national healthcare website extensions can look at my traffic, but there are no ads. I'm not saying ad blockers are bad, but it's not like we didn't have extensions being subverted in the past.

You can disable your adblocker on any site you wish. If you're paranoid, you have control
Post reply on HN