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

381–390 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#381

Post by gjsman-1000 »

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…

One very recent anecdotal example involving narwhals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L-3FfkXfM

Let's just say Wikipedia made an absurd lie, for years from an obvious misunderstanding, and a viciously protective editor got involved...

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#382

Post by lxgr »

Jach wrote: post #343
lxgr wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones using declarative blocking (like everything compatible with Safari or newer Manifest V3 web extensions for Chrome and Firefox) don't need access to your browsing context. They're not as powerful as the ones that are able to inject content into visited pages or programmatically inspect and block/alter HTTP requests, but personally I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the reasons you mentioned. Chrome/Google…

I'll believe Google cares about extension security when they allow the user to trivially disable auto-updates.

That would be the express road to long-term unpatched vulnerabilities.

There's basically two ways to have safe web extensions: Carefully control their entire supply chain (which could easily cause big antitrust problems for Google as the vendor of the most popular browser), or minimize the things they have access to.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#383

Post by gjsman-1000 »

tga_d wrote: post #353
skhr0680 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contrad…

That's the propaganda Wikipedia wants you to think, citing itself.

In practice, it doesn't work. The bias and delusional behavior of the editors is infectious, widespread, and has even been criticized by Wikipedia's own co-founder Larry Sanger as being overrun by "left-wing propaganda essays." He even went as far as to call it the "most biased encyclopedia in history" in an interview with Glenn Greenwald. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR6dO8U8okk)

Frankly, it does seem (following stereotypes) that left-wing people have a stronger tendency to be writers from being white-collar; while more right-wing folks are too busy with blue-collar jobs and physical labor to be writing rebuttals. A very simple example is how Wikipedia approves Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, Jezebel, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, and Jacobin as sources, but Fox News is considered "unreliable." Permitting Jacobin and Jezebel, but not Fox, is delusional. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...)

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#385

Post by hm64 »

madebymaya wrote: post #363
sunshowers wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> judiciary is independent from government

Correction: The judiciary is independent from the legislative branch of the government, but it functions alongside the executive and legislative branches as part of the Indian government. While the separation of powers is fundamental, it’s important to acknowledge that the existence of this structure doesn’t automatically guarantee impartiality or independence in practice.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#386

Post by ToxicMegacolon »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #377
ToxicMegacolon wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

…yes it does make sense? They’re complying within the rules fully, but if they decide the rules are too onerous or compromising on their core mission, the legally correct thing to do is to take their ball and go home. The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court. If the citizens of India don’t like this outcome, it’s up to them to fix it.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with it. I was just trying to fully understand what the other commenter said.

If following the law is such a burden on them then they should by all means pack up and leave. This is also what the Delhi High Court said after Wikipedia chose to ignore its order. This applies to all western institutions and corporations. If the expectation is that, Indian courts and the Indian public should continue to bend over then that is not going to happen.

> The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court.

How wikipedia choses to follow rulings of Delhi High Court is not India's problem. This is 100% on wikipedia to implement it without a geo block, so maybe you should take this up with Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#387

Post by Aeolun »

ruthmarx wrote: post #283
Aeolun wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of thing do you have on your PC they’d care about? Actually, I guess if you don’t want them to know you won’t tell me now either xD I don’t like the idea of handing out my password any more, but wiping my PC is too much effort.

> What kind of thing do you have on your PC they’d care about? You get that's not the point, right?

This seemed to be a fairly explicit case of “I hate traveling to Australia because of so and so”.

Sure, it’s retarded in general, but that was not what I was talking/asking about.

They apparently both have a need to travel to Australia, _and_ data on their PC that requires wiping. That makes me curious what kind of data that could be.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#388

Post by cmrdporcupine »

ruthmarx wrote: post #177
marcus_holmes wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all "beer and barbie on the beach" until you realise that's all illegal.

I'm already annoyed I have to wipe my devices whenever I travel there or risk a $5000 fine and maybe jail time if they want the password and I don't give it up. Australia has to be the least free country in the anglosphere.

What? The US has been pulling this crap since 9/11, so I'm not sure what you're going on about IRT the Anglo-Sphere.

The US only has privacy rights for Americans. As a non-citizen traveler, they routinely belittle, humiliate, and violate such privacy, demanding access to people's phones at risk of detention (or at best being sent back home) being exactly one of the things they do. Ask almost any Canadian what they think about the border in the last 20 years.

I've also had them mock and belittle me for no reason ("what event are you going to?" "that sounds stupid."), just petty stuff.

I wipe my personal data when traveling to the US, which I pretty much only do for work. (And likely won't even do that anymore if Nov 5 goes to Trump)

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#389

Post by Aeolun »

nradov wrote: post #373
immibis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doing nothing is working fine in the USA so far. Not all problems need to be solved, and sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.

I think a lot of people in Europe would disagree with that notion of fine

There’s an image around the internet of a dog in a burning house saying ‘this is fine’. That’s the kind of fine I have in mind when I hear that.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#390

Post by cmrdporcupine »

sofixa wrote: post #214
haccount wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So Biden is a fascist and dangerous, but extremely week and can't remember his own kids? This is the classic far-right nonsense of the enemy is both super weak and to be crushed, and super dangerous and powerful.

Might-makes-right morality... and to prove how right I am, I will show you my might by beating on some victim.

The mistake is to analyze this kind of discourse from a position of looking for justice or other classical liberal concepts. Authoritarian right or left start from an entirely different positioning, similar to that of a schoolyard bully: if you cry injustice, you're already weak. Winning is most important above all, not being right. And if the winner is doing something "wrong", then what is wrong is redefined.

Epstein is evil because he was weak and got caught, so his accusers&victims are right... but if allegations are made against Trump for the same things, those making the allegations are liars, because Trump is strong. There's literally no way to make an accusation against him without being, yourself, cast as a villain.

Even Christianity itself is redefined, its core moral precepts rewritten from "turn the other cheek" and "blessed are the meek", to prosperity gospel and "God's favoured nation"

Post reply on HN