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

351–360 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#351

Post by surgical_fire »

syockit wrote: post #310
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.

There has been a little bit of furor in some circles in Japan, regarding the status of Yasuke, who was a favorite of Oda Nobunaga, whether he was a samurai or not. Around September of 2015, a user by the name tottoritom made numerous edits to the Yasuke article, citing to yet-to-be-published papers by Thomas Lockley. Coincidentally, tottoritom's user page introduces himself as Thomas Lockley too, and Lockley happened…

I find it odd that Yasuke would be a Samurai, when Toyotomi Hideyoshi, one of the three unifiers and a general under Nobunaga, was not.

After unifying Japan in 1590, Toyotomi Hideyoshi did not become Shogun because he was born a peasant. Only Samurai could become Shogun, and Hideyoshi was famously not one. You couldn't become a samurai, you had to be born one.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#352

Post by blue_pants »

instagraham wrote: post #274

As an Indian, you cannot understand the despair this makes me feel. ANI is a bit like privatised Pravda operating in service to the government, yet, still pretending to be independent journalism. Wherever there is a critic of the government, ANI exists to slander such critics as a service. As a discerning reader, you learn to avoid mainstream media that quotes ANI (don't even consider watching a TV channel). You seek…

> Linux bans Russian devs

The devs weren't banned, they were removed from the maintainers list

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/10/russi...

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#353

Post by tga_d »

skhr0680 wrote: post #318
signatoremo wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In order to maintain some semblance of process, Wikipedia has to approximate what is true by relying on the consensus from reputable sources, not reality itself. This means that experts are often not who you want editing an article, because experts are often poorly positioned to know what the general public knows, and what consensus is from outside their area of expertise. E.g., I have published research that contradicts information on Wikipedia, and while I am of course convinced I and my co-authors are right while Wikipedia is wrong, I would much rather have that state of affairs than a world where Wikipedia is written by everyone with a paper on a subject, and the line is drawn at whoever was the most recent editor.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#354

Post by hayleox »

colechristensen wrote: post #101
throwaway313373 wrote: post #100

Since when does Delhi high court have worldwide jurisdiction?

Since Wikipedia folded to their demands. The correct action would have been to black out India, but they chose otherwise

Wikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis. They had 36 hours to comply with this order and so took what action they could. The goal is to win the long-term appeal battle and avoid the entire site getting blocked permanently, but if they didn't comply with the short-term legal requirements, that path becomes much harder. Lose a battle but win the war.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#355

Post by ToxicMegacolon »

random_ind_dude wrote: post #306

I understand that Wikipedia has done this to not lose the possibility to appeal the court's decision. However, if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. I believe that will blow up spectacularly in ANI's face if everyone comes to know the reason for the block. Right now only a few people in India know about the ongoing dispute between ANI and Wikipedia. A coun…

> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for:

1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law. 2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong 3. Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law.

Makes sense

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#356

Post by olivermuty »

ToxicMegacolon wrote: post #355
random_ind_dude wrote: post #306

I understand that Wikipedia has done this to not lose the possibility to appeal the court's decision. However, if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. I believe that will blow up spectacularly in ANI's face if everyone comes to know the reason for the block. Right now only a few people in India know about the ongoing dispute between ANI and Wikipedia. A coun…

> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for: 1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law. 2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong 3. Wikipedia should t…

This ruling seems as corrupt as they go. What kind of untruths did Wikipedia do to cause this to be «defamation»?

Step 3 would be to broadcast to all of India this corrupt ruling.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#357

Post by hayleox »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #71

How can they claim defamation when the original sentence said "(ANI has) been accused of...?" The bar of truth for that statement is absurdly low.

Defamation law in India is pretty bad and leans way more in favor of someone making an accusation of defamation than in favor of free and open speech. https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/rahul-gandhi-cr...

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#358

Post by throwaway64736 »

immibis wrote: post #238
endgame wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have governments become more authoritarian? Judging by the various misinformation legislation they're rushing to adopt, yes. The free internet said too many things that powerful people didn't like. An Australian example: https://x.com/SenatorRennick/status/1834455727764869593#m

Misinformation is an actual problem, so I don't know what you expect the government to do about it. Nothing at all? We saw how that idea worked out in the USA.

Yes, nothing. It's better than allowing the government to decide what is fact or lie, Ministry of Truth style.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#359

Post by sunshowers »

utkarsh858 wrote: post #92

The article has not been blocked by Indian government but by Indian judiciary system with a trial, there's a difference. Also trials in India take a lot of time and conclusions are reached after much thought. Also Wikipedia does not have a good track record of its editors free from misleading articles for defamation and propaganda. I won't trust at all the article in Wikipedia about the war between Wikipedia and ANI.…

In India like in many other countries, the judiciary is one of the three branches of government. As an Indian citizen I certainly don't trust the Indian judiciary to be impartial when it comes to literally ANI.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#360

Post by madebymaya »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #330
ImJamal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of Wikipedia would likely be banned which, I assume, they want to avoid.

As an Indian, I hope they go this path to be banned. Imagine media coverage of a fight between a non functioning and corrupt government vs the most important source of knowledge for everyone.

such an asinine but casual remark about the elected government in power without any credible allegations of corruption nor non-functioning.

this was a case between one private news agency (ANI) vs another private foundation WMF in a court of law that's independent of any government influence or intervention. Why should the central government be brought in here in the critic of this dispute? Such nonsense based on hatred and political biases is the primary cause for many problems (in India and world over, the failure to accept the democratically elected governments legitimacy & carrying forth the hate and non-acceptance to put forth remarks & level allegations sans any basis. motivated idiocy unchecked.

Post reply on HN