Update: They’ve already “sold out” the editors.
https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2024/12/21/does-wikipedia-protect-your-privacy/
Anyone can take a look at what the Wikipedia editors themselves are saying about the matter.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_Delhi_court
The admins from India have only been accused of defamation. Now that the court has their identities, the actual statements will be examined to see if they do actually contain defamation. So anyone can go on a fishing expedition to get someone’s identity, and then say ‘oops, no laws were broken after all’, and now that we know who you are, it would be a shame if someone fell out of a window or something. And of course whatever is in the “sealed” document is now out, India is one of the biggest places for bribery there is. They are also saying the documents will be unsealed at the end of the court case, so it might be cheaper to just wait until they are published.
-
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
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.
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
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.
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.
What’s going on here?
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
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.
You can click the article to find out!
I can?
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.
and half the population (women) don’t have the same rights as men
Backed up by something or just your feelings
Backed on Global Gender Gap Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
Or any other gender equality index that always put India on the bottom. Very bad.
Doesn’t apply in this case, it’s about a decision that is still pending
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:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Open_proxies
It’s not super easy, but it doesn’t sound like some insurmountable obstacle.
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.
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.
It’s likely that the editors and principles have been betrayed by this point and thus Encycla and ibis.wiki should be the places we can flock to.
Who actually uses those sites
What are the differences in those sites’ governance which would immunize them from a similar legal attack by the BJP?
They probably don’t have half the legal staff of Wikipedia.
In response to your edits:
Have you actually read your replies?
That edit was intended for people who downvoted the comment for unknown reasons.
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?
Ah yes, an account called “wikipediasucks” that only posts negative links about Wikipedia…
