ANI sues Wikipedia Delhi [IN] HC Doubles Down (www.moneycontrol.com)

submitted 1 week ago by ulterno@lemmy.kde.social to c/world@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Relevant Article: Asian News International sues Wikipedia for "Defamation" and Archived version

Apparently, Delhi High Court asked Wikipedia to disclose information about editors of said article, which made some controversial edits on the Wikipedia ANI page.

The article states that Wikipedia failed to provide said information.

From the article

Wikipedia explained that the delay had been caused as the platform didn’t have any physical presence in India.

“It is not a question of the defendant not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here," the judge said in a stark warning.

ANI asks for removal of said "controversial" edits and wants ₹20000000, ~$240k from Wikipedia.

Archived original article

From the related article:

2022-10-10: Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers of India filed petitions to the Supreme Court, saying that an article on Wikipedia about them, as defamatory. To that, the bench said, "You can edit the Wikipedia article..." and that they could use "any other remedy available to them".

Additional information from me:

IP Addresses of people in Talk and the times of edit are available freely on the Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia SHOULD NOT be expected to have the ability to trace people on the internet any more than that.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wikipedia vs Delhi HC Judge's Actions

Wikipedia explained that the delay had been caused as the platform didn’t have any physical presence in India.

Wikipedia here, explaining that they have a limited ability and asking HC to be reasonable.

"We will close your business transactions here"

Judge, realising they are showing weakness, increasing threat level.

Current actions vs Past actions

Refer "Relevant Article" in the post.
Low impact companies asked Supreme Court and were shot down
Company with a high standing and a potential political backing, asks the High Court and gets full attention
- On top of that, Delhi HC Judge decides to move to "Contempt of Court", making it much harder for Wikipedia, in case they move Supreme Court (SC) in the future, for a re-trial
- I feel like this would have gone differently had ANI gone to SC from the beginning.

Writing this part separately in a comment, because I understand this includes my bias.

Also, if I don't interact with any comments later, please excuse me. GOI might have stopped my internet, just for posting this, because they can.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I wonder who is harmed more by Wikipedia stopping business in India? Indians or Wikipedia?

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For the average Indian, it would be just a minor inconvenience. Having to visit a site full of ads and half-assedly written information, whenever they want to know something new, is the price they will pay.

For Uni students, looking for stuff to plagiarise, it won't be much different either, as most of the times, Wikipedia is considered a less reliable source than a shady website having 10's of ad popups leading to malicious targets. Probably because the one grading it, only has to check to make sure it is not a Wikipedia URL and doesn't really need to actually open the link to see here it leads.

Wikipedia kinda works like a Democracy of the type, 'Logical Consensus', making it very hard for people to just throw money at it to get false information shown, at least on topics with enough hands-on people^[as compared to a normal democracy, which only relies on number of people supporting a decision]. This makes it very unappealing for political campaigns. Meaning, Govt. doesn't have a reason to care for it.

What we lose:

As a kid, most articles I read on Wikipedia were Science and Technology related. They seemed to have a certain amount of care put into writing them and I picked up a bit of "care" from it.
- We lose this potential positive influence on future inquisitive children, which will probably turn to video based sources (assuming they don't just give up and go back to WhatsApp/X/other stuff). While video based sources are also fine, IMHO, the way Wikipedia tends to have stuff laid out, is a really nice way to let people learn new stuff, which might be leagues away from their on level and domain.

What Wikipedia loses:

India has a lot of people. A lot of them would be contributing to the information in it. That is lost.
- Catch: A lot of the Indians in Science and Tech tend to just emigrate. So, Wikipedia still has those.
- Blind Spot: I don't really read much other than Science and Tech and won't be able to assess the amount and value of other articles. By extension, the contribution by resident Indians to those.

What Wikipedia as a company, loses:

A bit of money maybe.
- Though still much less than what ANI is trying to extort

What I gain:

Another reason to consider emigration
A reason to vote. And not incumbency this time.

What happens if Wikipedia pays out?

A precept
- I'd rather have WMF block Indian access, than this happen.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 1 week ago

ANI does seem to be getting the Streisand effect going though. I would never have checked their Wikipedia page and never have known of said allegations. And no, I didn't even have to see the Wikipedia page, to know that something on those lines was written on Wikipedia.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The Indian Express - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Indian Express:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - India
Wikipedia about this source

Internet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Internet Archive:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://web.archive.org/web/20240714172651/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

If you want to see some real level of mental degeneracy, you should check out the edit and discuss pages for any Wikipedia articles involving Modi or the BJP.

It's literally like 2 mods keeping information up and preventing a wave of salty nationalist trying to edit in propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots&action=history

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 1 points 1 week ago

I usually try to stay away from any of those.
Just that this time, they decided to use the legal system to suppress Wikipedia, which is why I thought, this needed to be shared.

Normally, I don't even care about checking Wikipedia for controversial topics.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024

10 points (91.7% liked)

World News

38529 readers

2303 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.