At a time of rising authoritarianism, the Wikimedia Foundation faces a choice it may celebrate—or regret—forever
    • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
      71·
      20 days ago

      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

      • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        45·
        20 days 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.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      38·
      20 days ago

      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

      • tb_@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        19 days 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

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      23·
      20 days 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.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      19 days ago

      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.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    53·
    20 days ago

    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.

    • kava@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      19 days 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@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      3·
      19 days ago

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

      Backed up by something or just your feelings

    • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      13·
      20 days ago

      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.

      • infeeeee@lemm.eeEnglish
        10·
        19 days 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.

  • Dupree878@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    19 days ago

    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?

    • tb_@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      19 days ago

      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.

  • Ilandar@aussie.zoneEnglish
    23·
    19 days ago

    Ah yes, an account called “wikipediasucks” that only posts negative links about Wikipedia…

  • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    16·
    19 days ago

    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?