5 ms·

I understand that Wikipedia has done this to not lose the possibility to appeal the court's decision. However, if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I t

I understand that Wikipedia has done this to not lose the possibility to appeal the court's decision. However, if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. I believe that will blow up spectacularly in ANI's face if everyone comes to know the reason for the block. Right now only a few people in India know about the ongoing dispute between ANI and Wikipedia. A country-level block is going to bring everyone's attention to the issue which I don't think is something ANI and the incumbent party (the BJP) would want to happen. India routinely blocks many websites, including many porn sites, but blocking something as big, popular and useful as Wikipedia is not going to go unnoticed by the Indian media.

contravariant 2y ago
If possible it would be better to let India block wikipedia themselves, that way the government doesn't get to shift blame on Wikipedia. Whichever way it goes the government has a lot of control over the narrative and it's a lot harder for them to hide that it is their decision to block wikipedia completely.
- brainzap 2y ago
  good answer
- Self-Perfection 2y ago
  Governments do not hesitate to blatantly shift blame. For instance, Russian internet censorship agency blocks YouTube for a couple of months and they still pretend that it is Google's technical issue: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469a7947f3be50635b?from=share https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469...
  - startupsfail 2y ago
    I’m a bit surprised Google is still serving at Russia, are they doing it to avoid loosing browser and search market share? They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume?
    - seppel 2y ago
      > They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume? When they show an advertisement of, say, some asian company to a russian user, they are still making money, aren't they?
      - spartach 2y ago
        They just don't show any ads to Russian users (if the user doesn't use a VPN to the outer world).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for: 1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law. 2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong 3. Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law. Makes sense
- iforgotpassword 2y ago
  Maybe not block it themselves, but put a prominent notice at the top linking to the case and article and see what the Indian government will do next. :)
  - ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
    I don't think that will help a lot. This my opinion, but I think most Indians treat western sources such as NYT, BBC to be biased/racist against India. If wikipedia were to put a banner on top, it would just end up being another entry in that list.
    - ecosystem 2y ago
      Are the Indian news sources cited in the allegedly defaming Wikipedia article also considered to be western biased?
- olivermuty 2y ago
  This ruling seems as corrupt as they go. What kind of untruths did Wikipedia do to cause this to be «defamation»? Step 3 would be to broadcast to all of India this corrupt ruling.
  - ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
    > This ruling seems as corrupt as they go The defamation case is still ongoing. But I guess any ruling that isn't favoring Wikipedia will automatically be "corrupt"
Viliam1234 2y ago
I think it would be okay to implement country-specific article bans, but make them obvious. Like, if you are from India and visit the forbidden page, you get a large text "this article is banned in India", maybe with some smaller text explaining that it happened as a result of a court order, with a hyperlink, etc. However, the article is still there in the database, and everyone not in India can see it. And anyone in India can ask a foreign friend to send them a copy. (Maybe someone will make a website on a different domain that will contain the banned articles from Wikipedia, making them visible for everyone.) Basically, comply with the bans in a Streisand-effect way.
- account42 2y ago
  India can just block those other websites without too much fuss and not everyone has foreign friends or the technical expertise to get around the contry block themselves - and even if they do it they might not care enough. Best would be to ignore the court demand completely and force India's hand to either block Wikipedia entirely or stop their bs.
rldjbpin 2y ago
> popular and useful as Wikipedia is not going to go unnoticed by the Indian media. without dwelling into the nuances of this case and who's on the right, it would be myopic to think that the block is not a realistic possibility. it has been over 4 years since the TikTok ban (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679286), and while it might be apple and oranges, it does not remove from the fact that a major site was blocked, reported widely, and is still standing to this day.
LeoMessi10 2y ago
Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.

contravariant 2y ago

If possible it would be better to let India block wikipedia themselves, that way the government doesn't get to shift blame on Wikipedia. Whichever way it goes the government has a lot of control over the narrative and it's a lot harder for them to hide that it is their decision to block wikipedia completely.

brainzap 2y ago
good answer
Self-Perfection 2y ago
Governments do not hesitate to blatantly shift blame. For instance, Russian internet censorship agency blocks YouTube for a couple of months and they still pretend that it is Google's technical issue: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469a7947f3be50635b?from=share https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469...
- startupsfail 2y ago
  I’m a bit surprised Google is still serving at Russia, are they doing it to avoid loosing browser and search market share? They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume?
  - seppel 2y ago
    > They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume? When they show an advertisement of, say, some asian company to a russian user, they are still making money, aren't they?
    - spartach 2y ago
      They just don't show any ads to Russian users (if the user doesn't use a VPN to the outer world).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ToxicMegacolon 2y ago

> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for: 1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law. 2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong 3. Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law. Makes sense

iforgotpassword 2y ago
Maybe not block it themselves, but put a prominent notice at the top linking to the case and article and see what the Indian government will do next. :)
- ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
  I don't think that will help a lot. This my opinion, but I think most Indians treat western sources such as NYT, BBC to be biased/racist against India. If wikipedia were to put a banner on top, it would just end up being another entry in that list.
  - ecosystem 2y ago
    Are the Indian news sources cited in the allegedly defaming Wikipedia article also considered to be western biased?
olivermuty 2y ago
This ruling seems as corrupt as they go. What kind of untruths did Wikipedia do to cause this to be «defamation»? Step 3 would be to broadcast to all of India this corrupt ruling.
- ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
  > This ruling seems as corrupt as they go The defamation case is still ongoing. But I guess any ruling that isn't favoring Wikipedia will automatically be "corrupt"

Viliam1234 2y ago

I think it would be okay to implement country-specific article bans, but make them obvious. Like, if you are from India and visit the forbidden page, you get a large text "this article is banned in India", maybe with some smaller text explaining that it happened as a result of a court order, with a hyperlink, etc. However, the article is still there in the database, and everyone not in India can see it. And anyone in India can ask a foreign friend to send them a copy. (Maybe someone will make a website on a different domain that will contain the banned articles from Wikipedia, making them visible for everyone.) Basically, comply with the bans in a Streisand-effect way.

account42 2y ago
India can just block those other websites without too much fuss and not everyone has foreign friends or the technical expertise to get around the contry block themselves - and even if they do it they might not care enough. Best would be to ignore the court demand completely and force India's hand to either block Wikipedia entirely or stop their bs.

rldjbpin 2y ago

> popular and useful as Wikipedia is not going to go unnoticed by the Indian media. without dwelling into the nuances of this case and who's on the right, it would be myopic to think that the block is not a realistic possibility. it has been over 4 years since the TikTok ban (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679286), and while it might be apple and oranges, it does not remove from the fact that a major site was blocked, reported widely, and is still standing to this day.

LeoMessi10 2y ago

Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.