this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
282 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68066 readers
4286 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 119 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months 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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months 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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Gag orders in the US are issued very rarely.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months 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

[–] Morganza 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

and half the population (women) don't have the same rights as men

Backed up by something or just your feelings

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 4 months 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?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why? VPNs exist and fuck Modi

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And where are those Arab countries now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Reading Wikipedia

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wikipedia unfortunately has a policy of blocking so-called open proxies.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Most of the internet blocks open proxies. They're often times used in malicious attacks. Just blocking them isn't suspicious at all.

edit: This post is also quite old. Kind of weird that you're necro-commenting on it...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

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.

Edit: What's going on with the downvotes? What is despicable or freakish about discussing Wikipedia through a critical lens?

X, for example, is discussed through a critical lens ad nauseum in many mainstream publications throughout the English-speaking world. Do you find that despicable, too?

Wikipedia has very big problems that profoundly effect public discourse. Yet almost nobody knows about them.

Out of curiosity, why is criticism of Wikipedia so infuriating to you? You can just take a look at what Tracing Woodgrains had written about Wikipedia or rather, the following by Aaron Swartz who've seen the problems far away.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikiroads

I'll be blunt here for die-hard defenders of Wikipedia; are you going to die on a wrong hill where the Andrew Tate fanboys are currently on just because of a website and institution which is far from perfect just like X, Meta, and United Nations?

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (1 children)

First time I'm hearing about either of these which is going to be a problem.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I hadn't either but tbf most people hadn't heard of the fediverse until that Reddit thing. In this case the entirety of Wikipedia could along with an exodus, should one be warranted

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most people still haven't heard of the fediverse. We're in a tiny bubble here, an insignificant fraction standing disconnected from the vast majority of the population.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Good, as soon as the masses show up, it'll be fucking ruined.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

Who actually uses those sites

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In response to your edits:

Have you actually read your replies?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That edit was intended for people who downvoted the comment for unknown reasons.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

More authoritarian bull shit from India and the BJP.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Well I never

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can click the article to find out!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

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.

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.