Technology

58976 readers

6892 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

394

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court. (archive.ph)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by [email protected] to c/technology

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Original Link.

More info.

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. At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions". The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill".

On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article and warned that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site". In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Justice Manmohan said "I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes."

On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation due to an order from the court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LockheedTheDragon 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think this is confusing so tried to understand it and here is what I understand. The Wikipedia page for Asian News International is up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International And it says things like ANI is the "mouthpiece" of the Indian government. There is a section about the lawsuit and it quotes what ANI didn't like about it. This is what the lawsuit was first about, but this page and the discussion page are still up as of 27 Oct 2024. The page can't be modified and given what you can see it looks like there was some editing wars that happened before editing was taken away.

Now about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation The article and discussion page that was taken down is about the ongoing lawsuit. It been replaced with a page saying it was taken down and a link to the actual lawsuit. Which I suggest people read. I do think the Indian government has a point if you read the lawsuit. This is a ongoing lawsuit and the page taken down had info on it and a discussion page where people were talking about the ongoing lawsuit. The lawsuit says that this "...Complicates and compounds the issue at hand." And if you know anything about lawsuits the first thing people do or are told to do is to shut up about it. This page was really the opposite. I can see why Wikimedia complied.

That the lawsuit happened in the first place is disturbing. But I think Wikimedia replacement page for the ongoing lawsuit is not surprising and reasonable. If they had taken down the main article, now that would be disturbing.

[–] fpslem 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I do think the Indian government has a point if you read the lawsuit. This is a ongoing lawsuit and the page taken down had info on it and a discussion page where people were talking about the ongoing lawsuit. The lawsuit says that this "...Complicates and compounds the issue at hand."

Hard disagree. Ongoing lawsuits often have complicated issues, but are nonetheless topics of public concern. It's sometimes inconvenient for governments and large corporations to have the public aware of the lawsuit and the underlying facts and issues, but that's no reason to impose a gag order.

Frankly, whenever I hear a court give vague rationales like "complicates the issues," I assume they judge just doesn't like the criticism. That's what it sounds like here.

[–] LockheedTheDragon 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It is a public concern and any organization/people not a part of the lawsuit can talk and discuss it. Which we are doing. I even used the Wikipedia page we are talking about to discuss the lawsuit since it has the Order is on it. The full lawsuit isn't on that page, I made a mistake last night.

If there is a ongoing lawsuit that Wikimedia isn't a part of then they can have a Wikipedia page and discussion going on. That's their right.

My agreement is with the request in the Order for Wikimedia to not having ongoing discussion about the lawsuit. This isn't a gag order on everyone, it is just Wikimedia removing the info on the page about the lawsuit. And Wikimedia has info why they removed it and allowing people to read the Order so I think that is Wikimedia saying something without discussing it and it makes the Indian government look bad.

The order mentions more than "complicates the issue" so you might want to read the Order and gives more examples of what you see of their vagueness because it seemed reasonable to me. I find the lawsuit itself wrong and should have been thrown out.