this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
245 points (87.9% liked)

Technology

59756 readers
2800 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 120 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

What the actual fuck

Edit:

With Jimmy Wales’ assent, the WMF removed and locked the page. As unhappy as Wikipedians were about it, blocking content can be temporary. If the Foundation reveals these editors’ identities, this is a decision it can never reverse.

Guess I'll be watching this one closely.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 71 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In a recent court proceeding, WMF’s legal team offered a supposed middle path, proposing it take the unusual step of serving summons to the editors itself, thereby revealing their identities only to the court, not the wider public. Wikipedians, however, do not see this as a compromise—it’s capitulation. Last week, Wikipedia editors published an open letter to the Foundation, urging it to protect its volunteers’ privacy regardless of the outcome. It reads in part

only to the court, not the wider public

Would this really be that much better? Once the information is out, it's impossible to hide again

And the consequences would not end with this case. Compliance may discourage contributions from editors worldwide, not just those under authoritarian rule. WMF submission could encourage other governments to make similar demands, putting Wikipedia in an untenable position and reducing its influence where free knowledge is needed most

This bit also seemed important

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 week ago

Wikipedia has plenty of experience being blocked in the world’s largest country, which was the case until India’s population surpassed China’s in April 2023. If India takes the most drastic step, the Foundation can stand proud in its resolve.

Sounds easy enough to me.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Jimbo's justification is that if they don't do this to the page, they'll completely lose their chance of arguing in court, and 1. they can always restore it if the court orders something they decide not to do 2. the contents of the article are already archived all over the internet

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry.

Seems reasonable

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 week ago

I would never have become aware that that article existed if not for everyone talking about it being censored. The Streisand effect seems to still be alive.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't it pretty normal for judges to prohibit plaintiffs and defendants from talking about active court cases outside of the court room? I doubt Asian News International is allowed to publish articles about the case, either.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Gag orders in the US are issued very rarely.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I never bought the "world biggest democracy" publicity stun. And each day it's more and more obvious that India is not a true democracy. They have always prosecuted and try to kill anyone opposing the regime, and half the population (women) don't have the same rights as men. They are one of the lowest countries in gender equality index. Without half the population it is imposible to be a democracy.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

most democratic countries cosplay as democracies. just like most communist countries cosplayed as communist.

ideology in its purest form. After the death of God, you need something to fill that unapproachable void. So you inject ideals- civil service, egalitarianism, tolerance, justice, etc -- values that are virtuous and aspirational, but ultimately are just shiny veneers over a darker truth. it functions as scaffolding for systems that serve the interests of raw power. it is theater. performance. spectacle. underneath, the mechanisms of control, inequality, and corruption remain unchanged.

don't make the mistake of believing that India is somehow unique here

[–] infeeeee@lemm.ee 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can edit wikipedia fully privately, if you live in a similar jurisdiction. There are some limitations on Tor, but from these articles it sounds like it's possible to work it around:

It's not super easy, but it doesn't sound like some insurmountable obstacle.

[–] interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good luck getting an edit to stick when you're doing it privately on a high traffic or political page. Wikipedia is known to have an entrenched little clique that works hard at gatekeeping.

[–] infeeeee@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

You can't do it on clearnet without some reputation either. I meant that you can register anonymously, than work yourself up to get some reputation and rights, than you can edit your favorite political post. I think the 2 things are orthogonal.

[–] Dupree878@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So block the article in India but there’s no reason to block it in the rest of the world. Fuck India’s government gonna do to them?

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has changed about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step.

Hopefully not block the entire website in India.

[–] LorIps@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why? VPNs exist and fuck Modi

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not everyone knows of/has access to VPN's.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I also get why they'd rather try to resolve it legally. If they succeed it will allow for much easier access for the majority of visitors.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They'll learn quickly. The Arab Spring bore that out.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And where are those Arab countries now?

Reading Wikipedia

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 23 points 1 week ago

Ah yes, an account called "wikipediasucks" that only posts negative links about Wikipedia...

[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

More authoritarian bull shit from India and the BJP.

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Well I never

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doesn't apply in this case, it's about a decision that is still pending

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] hector@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can click the article to find out!

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 0 points 1 week ago
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles

Edit: Don't downvote this person please. They just phrased their question badly.

[–] wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

You've been blocked by network security.

To continue, log in to your Reddit account or use your developer token

If you think you've been blocked by mistake, file a ticket below and we'll look into it.

Log in File a ticket