4 ms·

In a first, Wikipedia takes down article globally after Delhi HC order

61 points by aspenmayer 2y ago

aspenmayer 2y ago
https://archive.is/POAuW https://archive.is/POAuW The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... > The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options. > We remain committed to access to knowledge as a human right. We are working to ensure that everyone can access and share free knowledge on Wikipedia. > This regards active litigation, and this page will be updated when we are able to share more information. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_ANI_v_Wikimedia_order.pdf https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_A... The prior page has been scrubbed from the history of the page, which I have never seen before. Most recent archive of page I could find: https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl Court case info says "pending" with next court date being listed as October 25, 2024: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS(OS)&cno=524&cyear=2024 https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new... https://archive.is/yPgzv https://archive.is/yPgzv
- randunel 2y ago
  > ANI Media Private Limited, the parent company of news agency Asian News International (ANI), filed a ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) over the description of ANI in the English Wikipedia article about the news agency. Asian News International used the Delhi High Court to censor Wikipedia? Or did the court order the censorship ex officio?
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Unclear to me at the moment; I’m catching up on the Wikipedia Talk page that has some staff quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)
- bawolff 2y ago
  > The prior page has been scrubbed from the history of the page, which I have never seen before. Its rare, but does happen ocassionally. Normally it only happens when someone posts personal information that is not something that is in the public interest enough to belong in an article.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Those deletions seem consistent with Wikipedia norms and come from within the organization and its editors, compared to this action being seemingly complied with under protest in order to leave all options open legally.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Indeed, i agree. I just meant on a technical level, scrubbing page histories is a thing that happens ocassionally. The current situatuon is pretty unprecedented as far as i know.
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        The only other time I found a country-level block for a specific page was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radi... Worldwide blocks for a specific page are unprecedented.
        bawolff 2y ago
        That was not a country wide block.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        Nice spot. It was an attempted block/deletion of the article on the French-language Wikipedia.
adastra22 2y ago
This is headline bait. The article in question is about a lawsuit in which Wikipedia is the defendant. The court said that they needed to take down the article just until the lawsuit is resolved, to prevent jury tampering. This is a nothing burger.
- yorwba 2y ago
  Where are you getting the "jury tampering" from? Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#India seems to indicate that India mostly abolished jury trials after independence.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    I inferred too much from: > amounts to interference in Court proceedings
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-all-about https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-v... https://archive.is/0lUgq https://archive.is/0lUgq > The court has asked Wikipedia to disclose details of individuals who made edits on its ANI page. From the last archive of the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl > The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors. At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (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". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content. > According to Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has "clear citations that lead to the primary source of information", including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organizations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint. According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia. > Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, found the suit to be an attempt at stifling free speech. Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla's decision to order the release of personally-identifying information was "a challenge to freedom of speech and information" and would result in the censorship of "any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like". Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge". Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manomhan and Gedela's order to take down the page on the litigation, too, disagreeing with the allegations of interfering with judicial proceedings and noting similar coverage by mainstream media. > Tanveer Hasan, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, called the proceedings an "assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation".
gruez 2y ago
It's weird that wikipedia took down the page for all users, rather than only for Indian users. AFAIK most tech companies only comply with "political" takedown requests (I'm using this broadly to include anything between blasphemy/lese majeste laws and defamation/right to be forgotten laws, as opposed to something like DMCA requests) in the country where the takedown was issued, leaving it up for other countries. Does the wikimedia foundation not have the infrastructure to do geo-targeted takedowns? Or was this the intended outcome?
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  From what I've gathered, the worldwide takedown was court-ordered. https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl
  - lopis 2y ago
    But how can a court have worldwide jurisdiction? I suppose it was technically harder to handle this request just for Indian users, since it was an unprecedented request.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      I don't believe it does, but the courts threatened to block Wikipedia or find WMF and likely any assets and/or staff in India in contempt if they did not comply, likely including fines.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      This is similar to what Australia is doing to X, requesting content be taken down worldwide, which X is fighting.
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        I think that as of June this year, that saga has ended in favor of X: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/win-free-speech-australia-drops-global-takedown-order-case https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/win-free-speech-austra... https://archive.is/rgNKq https://archive.is/rgNKq
potamic 2y ago
This is going to be quite the controversial case, whether a platform is responsible for surfacing information published by other sources. In this ongoing suit, ANI is going after editors of Wikipedia for defamation instead of the original authors. What today applies to Wikipedia, may tomorrow apply to social media platforms where users can be charged for simply sharing links.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > whether a platform is responsible for surfacing information published by other sources. Welcome to EU.
elashri 2y ago
I actually had some hopes that this particular court would make the first win for Sci-hub against publishers. But it seems this is very optimistic (not to mention dragging for years now).
- dang 2y ago
  Sorry for the offtopicness but could you email hn@ycombinator.com? I did something with one of your posts that I would like to explain (a good thing, don't worry!)
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Do you mind sharing with the rest of the class?
    - dang 2y ago
      I made a fresh copy of a submission and deleted the earlier one so I could put it in the SCP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        Cool, thanks for the clarification.
rchard2scout 2y ago
According to Jimbo Wales, they complied in order to not "lose the possibility to appeal". Apparently, "the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step." WMF lawyers are doing "everything [they] can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Jimbo_Wales-20241021091300-Comment_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c...
theanonymousone 2y ago
I remember Facebook obeying a similar order last year or so (From India, for global users). Is that the new normal?

61 points by aspenmayer 2y ago

https://archive.is/POAuW https://archive.is/POAuW The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... > The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options. > We remain committed to access to knowledge as a human right. We are working to ensure that everyone can access and share free knowledge on Wikipedia. > This regards active litigation, and this page will be updated when we are able to share more information. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_ANI_v_Wikimedia_order.pdf https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_A... The prior page has been scrubbed from the history of the page, which I have never seen before. Most recent archive of page I could find: https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl Court case info says "pending" with next court date being listed as October 25, 2024: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS(OS)&cno=524&cyear=2024 https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new... https://archive.is/yPgzv https://archive.is/yPgzv

randunel 2y ago
> ANI Media Private Limited, the parent company of news agency Asian News International (ANI), filed a ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) over the description of ANI in the English Wikipedia article about the news agency. Asian News International used the Delhi High Court to censor Wikipedia? Or did the court order the censorship ex officio?
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Unclear to me at the moment; I’m catching up on the Wikipedia Talk page that has some staff quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)
bawolff 2y ago
> The prior page has been scrubbed from the history of the page, which I have never seen before. Its rare, but does happen ocassionally. Normally it only happens when someone posts personal information that is not something that is in the public interest enough to belong in an article.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Those deletions seem consistent with Wikipedia norms and come from within the organization and its editors, compared to this action being seemingly complied with under protest in order to leave all options open legally.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Indeed, i agree. I just meant on a technical level, scrubbing page histories is a thing that happens ocassionally. The current situatuon is pretty unprecedented as far as i know.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      The only other time I found a country-level block for a specific page was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radi... Worldwide blocks for a specific page are unprecedented.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        That was not a country wide block.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        Nice spot. It was an attempted block/deletion of the article on the French-language Wikipedia.

adastra22 2y ago

This is headline bait. The article in question is about a lawsuit in which Wikipedia is the defendant. The court said that they needed to take down the article just until the lawsuit is resolved, to prevent jury tampering. This is a nothing burger.

yorwba 2y ago
Where are you getting the "jury tampering" from? Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#India seems to indicate that India mostly abolished jury trials after independence.
- adastra22 2y ago
  I inferred too much from: > amounts to interference in Court proceedings
aspenmayer 2y ago
I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-all-about https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-v... https://archive.is/0lUgq https://archive.is/0lUgq > The court has asked Wikipedia to disclose details of individuals who made edits on its ANI page. From the last archive of the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl > The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors. At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (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". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content. > According to Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has "clear citations that lead to the primary source of information", including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organizations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint. According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia. > Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, found the suit to be an attempt at stifling free speech. Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla's decision to order the release of personally-identifying information was "a challenge to freedom of speech and information" and would result in the censorship of "any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like". Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge". Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manomhan and Gedela's order to take down the page on the litigation, too, disagreeing with the allegations of interfering with judicial proceedings and noting similar coverage by mainstream media. > Tanveer Hasan, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, called the proceedings an "assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation".

gruez 2y ago

It's weird that wikipedia took down the page for all users, rather than only for Indian users. AFAIK most tech companies only comply with "political" takedown requests (I'm using this broadly to include anything between blasphemy/lese majeste laws and defamation/right to be forgotten laws, as opposed to something like DMCA requests) in the country where the takedown was issued, leaving it up for other countries. Does the wikimedia foundation not have the infrastructure to do geo-targeted takedowns? Or was this the intended outcome?

aspenmayer 2y ago
From what I've gathered, the worldwide takedown was court-ordered. https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl
- lopis 2y ago
  But how can a court have worldwide jurisdiction? I suppose it was technically harder to handle this request just for Indian users, since it was an unprecedented request.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    I don't believe it does, but the courts threatened to block Wikipedia or find WMF and likely any assets and/or staff in India in contempt if they did not comply, likely including fines.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    This is similar to what Australia is doing to X, requesting content be taken down worldwide, which X is fighting.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      I think that as of June this year, that saga has ended in favor of X: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/win-free-speech-australia-drops-global-takedown-order-case https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/win-free-speech-austra... https://archive.is/rgNKq https://archive.is/rgNKq

potamic 2y ago

This is going to be quite the controversial case, whether a platform is responsible for surfacing information published by other sources. In this ongoing suit, ANI is going after editors of Wikipedia for defamation instead of the original authors. What today applies to Wikipedia, may tomorrow apply to social media platforms where users can be charged for simply sharing links.

hulitu 2y ago
> whether a platform is responsible for surfacing information published by other sources. Welcome to EU.

elashri 2y ago

I actually had some hopes that this particular court would make the first win for Sci-hub against publishers. But it seems this is very optimistic (not to mention dragging for years now).

dang 2y ago
Sorry for the offtopicness but could you email hn@ycombinator.com? I did something with one of your posts that I would like to explain (a good thing, don't worry!)
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Do you mind sharing with the rest of the class?
  - dang 2y ago
    I made a fresh copy of a submission and deleted the earlier one so I could put it in the SCP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      Cool, thanks for the clarification.

rchard2scout 2y ago

According to Jimbo Wales, they complied in order to not "lose the possibility to appeal". Apparently, "the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step." WMF lawyers are doing "everything [they] can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Jimbo_Wales-20241021091300-Comment_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c...

theanonymousone 2y ago

I remember Facebook obeying a similar order last year or so (From India, for global users). Is that the new normal?