Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#401

Post by tga_d » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #383

tga_d wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://w…

Every source you list as "approved" either isn't listed as perennial at all (which makes me wonder, how did it end up on your list?), or has explicit carve-outs saying that statements need to be attributed due to bias. Meanwhile, Fox has had thorough discussion showing that there are substantial problems with their factual reporting on politics and science, that using them as attributed opinion sources is still fine, and that non-politics or science reporting should be examined critically but can be used. Particularly given the documents now publicly available on their handling of election coverage pretty clearly demonstrating an intentional distinction between what they think is true behind closed doors vs. reporting presented as reality (a distinction they ultimately had to admit in court), what grounds is there to dispute this policy?

Maybe you could clarify your concern by pointing to something where the public consensus from reputable sources is distinct from what Wikipedia presents, by matter of policy?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#402

Post by random_ind_dude » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:20 PM UTC

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[0] is the Wikipedia article that ANI has beef with. The claims of propaganda are all supported by ample secondary sources from Indian news organizations like Caravan Magazine and the Ken.

ANI wants Wikipedia to provide the names of the editors that added the details to the article. Once Wikipedia reveals those names, ANI will presumably sue them for defamation and force them to remove their contributions. While the edit history will remain, few are likely to read it.

Suing the editors and forcing them to retract their edits on Wikipedia will have a chilling effect on anyone Indian that tries to point out what ANI and similar organizations are doing. But if Wikipedia blocks India and the issue blows up in the media, ANI will be forced to back off and the article will stay up. Wikipedia then unblocks India. Is it a given that things are going to pan out this way? No, but it's quite likely.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#403

Post by devvvvvvv » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:22 PM UTC

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…

Anything even slightly controversial across political lines cannot be trusted. Math and technical topics that don't address any drama or controversy are usually fine for reference, but there are almost always better resources if you're trying to learn about a topic from scratch.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#404

Post by 0xedd » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:23 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#405

Post by Ylpertnodi » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

calvinmorrison wrote: post #321

I don't really oppose gdpr but one of the reasons I vehemently opposed implementing GDPR at my former job is that we were not operating in the EU. Well, we had customers there, but we were an American company operating with American severs. GDPR sets another precident that other countries can make laws about what people from other jurisdictions can do.. Our lawyers said "Do it anyway, just in case". The side effect o…

As an EU-er, i made a US FOIA request...got what i wanted and the US company changed their behavio(u)r. I get the feeling you dont quite understand the GDPR.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#406

Post by seppel » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:26 PM UTC

startupsfail wrote: post #374

Self-Perfection wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I’m a bit surprised Google is still serving at Russia, are they doing it to avoid loosing browser and search market share? They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume?

> They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume?

When they show an advertisement of, say, some asian company to a russian user, they are still making money, aren't they?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#407

Post by ecosystem » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

ToxicMegacolon wrote: post #378

iforgotpassword wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

I don't think that will help a lot. This my opinion, but I think most Indians treat western sources such as NYT, BBC to be biased/racist against India. If wikipedia were to put a banner on top, it would just end up being another entry in that list.

Are the Indian news sources cited in the allegedly defaming Wikipedia article also considered to be western biased?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#408

Post by jumping_frog » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:31 PM UTC

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.

I agree with your point of view. Maybe it was effective when it was the first effect. Like the million pixel website. Now there are million balls in the air. There are lot of current things going on. People will move on when they get tired. And the only memory they will have is "something happened".

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#409

Post by willy_k » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:32 PM UTC

adhi01 wrote: post #184

fwipsy wrote: post #15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International covers the lawsuit as well. "In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages.[16][17][18] On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors…

What a joke of a country.

You mean what a joke of a government?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#410

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 6:33 PM UTC

It's a trial in which Wikipedia is one of the participants. Do people who think that this is the real censorship support allowing any participant in a trial put up a webpage, that the "public" is allowed to edit, whose only purpose is to comment on the trial? Do you support this in all cases? If the "public" chooses to use that webpage to attack witnesses, jurors, and judges, can it be taken down then? Must Wikipedia, as a participant in the trial, be allowed to support and moderate a page like this?

It's also not a jurisdiction question. Wikipedia is free not to block the page anywhere if it is willing to be punished within India's jurisdiction for failing to do it.

This thread is so bizarre. I think 80% of middle-class people are against censorship of anything they support, and for censorship of anything they don't. The other 20% take moral positions instead of narcissistic ones, but are usually intimidated into silence. These people like Wikipedia, so censoring Wikipedia in any possible circumstance, including maintaining a place to comment on an ongoing trial in which they are a participant is wrong. Censoring Elon, censoring Palestine? It's actually so right that you seem Russian for even asking about it.