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

491–500 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#491

Post by LeoMessi10 »

sideshowb wrote: post #469
LeoMessi10 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be true if WMF were running Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. They won’t leave India as they want to play a critical part in shaping public opinion among the largest group of people. Sadly people in India don’t agree with the political coverage of Wikipedia and other such media, which is what upsets almost all foreign NGOs, portals, companies in India. Some day it will become a case study as to…

I've since changed my opinion on what I said above. It sounds like they are complying in the short term to maintain their right to challenge this in the Indian courts, which actually seems like a good strategy. I can't say I understand the rest of your comment, without more detail on which people (presumably not all 1.5 billion) are disagreeing with what coverage (presumably not all of it), etc.

Refer to this for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965925

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#492

Post by account42 »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #361
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 just block those other websites without too much fuss and not everyone has foreign friends or the technical expertise to get around the contry block themselves - and even if they do it they might not care enough. Best would be to ignore the court demand completely and force India's hand to either block Wikipedia entirely or stop their bs.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#493

Post by sofixa »

account42 wrote: post #486
sofixa wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pain is different from harm you know. When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up. Anyway, I'll believe that "progressives" actually care about how others feel when they start treating those not on board with their ideology with anything other than scorn or schadenfreude.

> When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up

And this is of course not what anyone is talking about, thanks for the useless strawman. It's stuff like football players being told to die, compared to monkeys, and mannequins with their names being hanged from bridges (Vinicius Jr) only because their skin colour is black. Or monkey chants and bananas being thrown at them.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#494

Post by ErikBjare »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #367
fwipsy wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

David Gerard strikes again

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#495

Post by vunderba »

paganel wrote: post #186
dartharva wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.

It can go the other way, too. I’m a computer programmer and I don’t use an ad-blocker, one of the reasons being that the presence of add is a very good indicator of websites that I should avoid. That strategy makes me actuality consume less content on the web, which I find as a big plus, and that’s because the great majority of today’s websites are filled with ads. Related, the same goes for TV, where I don’t try to…

While I understand the motivation, decent ad blockers such as uBlock Origin do a lot more than just block visible conventional advertisements. So by not running an ad block, unfortunately there might be a great deal of private data about your browser habits that are being exfiltrated without your knowledge.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#496

Post by stogot »

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…

You’re comparison is flawed as its two ends of a spectrum

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#497

Post by vunderba »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #420
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…

> 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 create a competing topic? No, it's not me who has the blind spots in the cases I have seen, sorry. Also, they are not worth the work to correct, since the overlord of the niche is usually someone with far too much time on their hands to argue, even…

Name and shame the specific articles and the specific data - I don't like it when people cast vague aspersions - it makes it difficult to refute or to corroborate rendering further discussion effectively meaningless.

Tangentially, I use Wikipedia strictly for topics of a scientific nature and usually find that it's relatively accurate.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#498

Post by immibis »

account42 wrote: post #480
immibis wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the question.

You don't get to dictate the discussion no matter how inconvenient that may be, just like the government doesn't get to dictate the truth.

When I ask a question I expect the reply to be an answer to the question, not trolling.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#499

Post by account42 »

sofixa wrote: post #493
account42 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pain is different from harm you know. When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up. Anyway, I'll believe that "progressives" actually care about how others feel when they start treating those not on board with their ideology with anything other than scorn or schadenfreude.

> When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up And this is of course not what anyone is talking about, thanks for the useless strawman. It's stuff like football players being told to die, compared to monkeys, and mannequins with their names being hanged from bridges (Vinicius Jr) only because their skin colou…

It's not a strawman but the kinds of views those calling to be tough on hate crimes often espouse.

And no, celebrities getting unwanted attention is not a harm or even an issue that anyone should care about. They can go wash away their tears with the stacks of cash they leech from forced public broadcast fees and other puplic funds for all I care. Or just go play for their own country.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#500

Post by philwelch »

immibis wrote: post #498
account42 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to dictate the discussion no matter how inconvenient that may be, just like the government doesn't get to dictate the truth.

When I ask a question I expect the reply to be an answer to the question, not trolling.

I did answer the question. You just didn’t like my answer.
Post reply on HN