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

361–370 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#361

Post by Viliam1234 »

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…

I think it would be okay to implement country-specific article bans, but make them obvious. Like, if you are from India and visit the forbidden page, you get a large text "this article is banned in India", maybe with some smaller text explaining that it happened as a result of a court order, with a hyperlink, etc.

However, the article is still there in the database, and everyone not in India can see it. And anyone in India can ask a foreign friend to send them a copy. (Maybe someone will make a website on a different domain that will contain the banned articles from Wikipedia, making them visible for everyone.)

Basically, comply with the bans in a Streisand-effect way.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#363

Post by madebymaya »

sunshowers wrote: post #359
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.

the opening statement is your opinion which is obviously incorrect, stated as if it's factual. In India, as in many countries that follow rule of law, judiciary is independent from government. It's the third pillar of democracy not government.

Classic Doctrine of separation of powers.

the latter part of the statement is clearly given as your opinion which of course one is free to carry.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#364

Post by Self-Perfection »

contravariant wrote: post #326
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 possible it would be better to let India block wikipedia themselves, that way the government doesn't get to shift blame on Wikipedia. Whichever way it goes the government has a lot of control over the narrative and it's a lot harder for them to hide that it is their decision to block wikipedia completely.

Governments do not hesitate to blatantly shift blame. For instance, Russian internet censorship agency blocks YouTube for a couple of months and they still pretend that it is Google's technical issue:

https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469...

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#365

Post by moralestapia »

hayleox wrote: post #354
colechristensen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Wikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis.

I can imagine. That's too much to ask to a company that's been on business for 20 years and have received 1.3B USD in total.

I could come up w/ a solution to that in an afternoon on my $5/mo server but yeah "you don't understand the scale of wikipedia" or some bs.

Not "donating" a single cent ever again.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#366

Post by iforgotpassword »

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…

Maybe not block it themselves, but put a prominent notice at the top linking to the case and article and see what the Indian government will do next. :)

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#367

Post by Viliam1234 »

fwipsy wrote: post #338
_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…

It sounds like you're accusing Wikipedia of being both too easy to edit ("everyone can write things there") and too restrictive about who can edit ("they don't care about facts... Crap editors and political propaganda.") It sounds like your real criticism is that Wikipedia has biases and won't let you correct them. Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how ba…

> Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how bad this is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...

Here is an example of a Wikipedia admin who spent years harassing a blogger (and a community the blogger belongs to), and it took a lot of effort and a lot of luck to make other admins admit that this was a bad thing and that it should stop.

(This is not the worst example I know of, but it is an example where Wikipedia changed its mind later, so you can agree that this was bad even if you trust Wikipedia.)

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#368

Post by slater »

tomrod wrote: post #339
wodenokoto wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liechtenstein is a member of interpol, so if they have a warrant for your arrest, that might actually be a problem for you, even if you are not going there.

Since I am not in any eurozone, I am outside of Interpol's reach, and even if I am enemy #1 in Liechtenstein no one would care. Interpol is still bound by international law and budget constraints. An arrest warrant looks fine and scary when issued by another country but extradition costs money even when there are agreements in place. I might be some minor value as a trading token between my locale and Liechtenstein,…

> Since I am not in any eurozone, I am outside of Interpol's reach

Interpol has 196 member states.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#369

Post by samatman »

sofixa wrote: post #209
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.

Are you saying that hurt feelings aren't harm? Words can hurt too you know, e.g. popular black footballers getting racist abuse anytime they go online is harmful to their mental health; trans people being told to kill themselves because they're Satan's spawn and pedophiles and what not also take severe hits to their mental health.

There is a critical principle in English common law: de minimus non curat lex.

Paraphrased, the law does not concern itself with trifles. Mean words causing hurt feelings qualify. I acknowledge that it can be a very big deal for the person on the receiving end: it's the sort of thing we should (and do) socially discourage, or moderate (or not) at the platform level.

But no, I don't think it rises to the level of harm, in that there should be no remedy under law, criminal nor tortuous.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/de_minimis_non_curat_lex

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#370

Post by samatman »

tomrod wrote: post #339
wodenokoto wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liechtenstein is a member of interpol, so if they have a warrant for your arrest, that might actually be a problem for you, even if you are not going there.

Since I am not in any eurozone, I am outside of Interpol's reach, and even if I am enemy #1 in Liechtenstein no one would care. Interpol is still bound by international law and budget constraints. An arrest warrant looks fine and scary when issued by another country but extradition costs money even when there are agreements in place. I might be some minor value as a trading token between my locale and Liechtenstein,…

Is this some strange fantasy roleplay?

If you go murder someone in Liechtenstein, there are only a small handful of places in the world where you are not guaranteed to be arrested and extradited back to Liechtenstein to face trial, at their government's request, should it ask and should you be found.

In that small handful of places, it's still a crapshoot.

Extradition costs are generally paid by the interested state, by the way.

Post reply on HN