India Issues Notice To Wikipedia Over Concerns of Bias (techcrunch.com) 65
India's government challenged Wikipedia's legal immunity as a tech platform on Tuesday, issuing a notice questioning whether the online encyclopedia should be reclassified as a publisher. The move follows Delhi High Court warnings to suspend Wikipedia's India operations over a defamation case filed by Asian News International. The news agency seeks to unmask contributors who labeled it a "government propaganda tool." Justice Navin Chawla threatened contempt proceedings after Wikipedia cited its lack of physical presence in India to request more time for disclosing user information. The court deemed the site's open editing feature "dangerous."
Re:Bias on Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia may be biased, but saying India engages in propaganda isn't an example of that.
India is a country that considers people writing stuff to be "dangerous".
ANI receives funding from the government and maintains fake news sites that support the BJP.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is "dangerous"? GTFO.....
Re:Bias on Wikipedia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Careful what you say.
Modi might have you murdered [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
eh? What the hell are you talking about? I mean, no one serious has ever accused India of harboring, nurturing, or promoting gangsters or terrorists?
And what are you talking about wrt the 'the courts publically issuing orders to destroy evidence'?
What exactly are you smoking, buddy? Pass on that good shit here too!
Re: (Score:2)
>>eh? What the hell are you talking about? I mean, no one serious has ever accused India of harboring, nurturing, or promoting gangsters or terrorists?
How much of India's "tech" economy is based on scam call centers and malware (which the Indian government refuses to police)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The future might be in the east, but not south east.
Re: (Score:2)
The indian judiciary and enforcement are corrupt and a joke.
The same can be said for every Wikipedia admin, especially the "top rank" ones like Bbb23. There is no justice or substantive challenge process when they make obviously corrupt acts - they just act like little stuck-up Judge Dredds and get away with it because any questioning of Wikipedia admins is against the rules now.
Re: (Score:3)
Congrats.. You just added Slashdot to the future list of sites for India to consider if they should be a publisher.
And the open "Comment posting form" that allows pseudonymous comments is "dangerous".
Re: Bias on Wikipedia? (Score:2)
If India considers a website dangerous, then India is welcome and well within its rights to not read it.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, the claim was that a particular publisher was a propaganda tool, which the publisher denied. I've no opinion about whether the claim was accurate or reasonable, but it wasn't about India unless "Asian News International" is an agent of the Indian government.
Re: (Score:2)
we're not shocked at all, evil people will always see the truth as biased against them, the more the evil ,classist and corrupt people are, the more they need to deny the truth, and the more obvious they become, we can all clearly see exactly how unethical they are and how far from reality they are
all these upper class people are the real losers, they've lost their humanity, their souls and their integrity
karma
bias to most (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Bias is nearly impossible to overcome. Everyone is biased and most of our biases are invisible to us. We think our bias is simple objectivity, when it's not. Very few people are truly objective, and that goes for most of the people who read this and consider themselves one of the rare objective few.
Furthermore, there isn't a real market for unbiased information. People say they want unbiased news, but the news outlets that get all their attention are the ones that reflect their biases. People respond t
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing though, "wikipedia" didn't prevent the edit. Editors working together on a mutually agreed policy did. Being an administrator on wikipedia is still considered a "community" position and not an "organization" position, and locking pages is done for reasons decided on by the editors, even if the action can only be physically taken by a smaller community-selected set of those editors, for the sake of preventing people from abusing those powers(I know, I know, it doesn't work).
There are roles
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! So the editors need to be held responsible for the slander. ANI asked that the details of the editors be shared so that they be held liable, but wikipedia mgmt refused to share that info too! That is just too weird - 'oh! we cant unlock because the community editors decided to slander you but we cant share the identity of the slanderous editors either!'
C'mon! This is just pure chaos!
If I were to edit Jimmy Wales page to mention that he is a pedo, and then tried to lock it, I bet the rules would 'ev
Let's stipulate the editors locked it. (Score:1)
These locks were done outside of India. Bombay has no jurisdiction over these actions, or even the original edits. I'll even demonstrate it for you right here (outside India):
Asian News International is an Indian government propaganda tool.
What can Modi do about this? NOTHING.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the Indian courts can do about it. But obviously they intend to by taking away Wikipedia's immunity in India and classifying it as a publisher. Presumably that means WIkipedia can be directly sued in Indian courts and ordered to pay damages for liable. Whether that order can be enforced would depend on what Wikipedia assets the newspaper could get access to.
That wikipedia reflects the biases of its editors ought to be obvious. The more difficult thing is that its editing process makes it
Re: (Score:1)
>>So the editors need to be held responsible for the slander.
Wikipedia doesn't not create original content. Every fact must be supported by a citation (in this case to Indian news publications like The Caravan). If the Indian government believes those source articles contain slander, that's who they should take to court. Let's be 100% honest here. No one outside of India gives a shit what the Wikipedia page for ANI says. The people editing it are likely Indians who are fed up with Modi's corrupti
Re: (Score:2)
This is just patently false. There are hundreds of thousands of so-called "facts" on WP that lack any type of citation, whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
There are hundreds of thousands of so-called "facts" on WP that lack any type of citation, whatsoever.
Could you give me some examples? Obviously I don't need hundreds-of-thousands, but what are some examples of incorrect facts on Wikipedia that lack any type of citation whatsoever?
Re: bias to most (Score:2)
It's a subtle detail in the definition of what makes someone a publisher. You can provide a service behind which pseudonymous articles can be published. But in some jurisdictions that means you will take responsibility for that content. Your contributors can remain anonymous until you are served with a proper subpoena. At that point, you either hand over the names or stand in their place in court.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about being white or Indian.
This is about the freaks who run Wikipedia being POS. There are plenty of white people who have been fucked by Wikipedia "editors".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
As to "why bias is impossible to eliminate?"
Meanings vary a bit, but I tend to think that bias usually is objective, in the sense that one creates a mean value from the set of observations that one perceives, and bias is deviation from that mean. However since different people have collected different sets of observations, they will disagree about bias, because they have different mean values.
Given that understanding, to say someone else is biased about something is to say they have a different mean value
Re: (Score:1)
Bias is nearly impossible to overcome. Everyone is biased and most of our biases are invisible to us.
For news organizations, bias research is interesting. Mostly because the bias in itself doesn't matter. There is a very small minority of people who, given all of the facts, will change their minds based on biased reporting.
So the problem is two fold: one being that you shouldn't let your bias propagate lies. This is where different laws come into place and seems to be what the issue is here potentially. Look at a lot of MSNBC reporting: Trump's "both sides" hoax, the "bloodbath" hoax, the "cheney" hoax, ev
Re: (Score:2)
In general** discussions of bias don't interest me much. Bias is a part of life.
I'd much rather hear of the things the nominal bias has led to doing, such as omitting facts, fabricating evidence, or straight up lying. Because these are things you should correct regardless of cause. The difference between an incompetent journalist who spews bullshit because they don't know any better, and a biased journalist who spews bullshit because they favor a certain side is zero in effect on my life.
**This opinion d
Re: bias to most (Score:2)
In the context of this story one might say that editors bias lead them to discuss the propaganda efforts of India but avoid similar discussions for other countries just as guilty. Facts are often only as important as framing or relative relavance.
Re: (Score:2)
The case isnt about bias, its about slander and the unwillingness of wikipedia to pull down the slanderous information, even in the face of evidence that its slander
Anyone who upvoted this comment (Score:2)
As if there is no precedent (Score:1)
Just as well they don't have a presence in India (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, open editing *IS* dangerous. If it weren't, it wouldn't have any power. And one of the dangers is that it allows people to spread lies. But it also allows people to spread truths.
That said, autocratic governments never like sources of information that they do not control.
I'm still in "fuck India" mode (Score:4, Informative)
They had an expat assassinated in Canada because they didn't like his politics. Rather than use the legal system, they had a diplomat arrange it. Which would be why they refused to cooperate with an investigation and why they got so pissy when called on it.
Fascists are going to be fascist. If someone with zero credentials or reputation says an Indian news outlet is pushing propaganda... That's credible enough that I'm going to accept it until there's evidence presented otherwise. That's why reputation is important - and India currently has a reputation for being deceptive and violent. And cooperative with Russia.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm in "duck 'murica" mode too!
After all, Murica also assassinated in Pakistan because they did not like his politics - some guy called Bin Laden.
OK, I'm being facetious.
In reality, India used the diplomatic route for many years with Canada, but each time it was unsuccessful. Read up on the Lockerbie bombing and see how Canada protected the terrorists for years, even refusing to honor the extradition treaty they had in place.
The reality is that that news outlet 'ANI' IS Modi-leaning, but free and independen
Re: (Score:3)
>Trudeau is instigating violence between Sikh and Hindus in India.
I can't count the number of times Trudeau has asked for more violence in India... Because it's zero. Zero times.
Do you even read the shit you're posting?
Re: I'm still in "fuck India" mode (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
India used to be generally quite hands off on the press. The current administration however has been hostile to dissent.
https://rsf.org/en/index [rsf.org]
Reporters Without Borders now ranks it at 159 out of 180 countries.
The hostility to Wikipedia is not new. I wonder if the attempt is to justify blocking it.
This is however unrelated to its relationship with Russia, which goes back much longer.
The real story is this! (Score:1)
The real story is that a private, but Modi-leaning, news organization called ANI was slandered on Wikipedia - some folks edited the ANI page to put in lies that ANI gets aid etc. from the Indian government. ANI tried to edit the page and remove the slander, but wikipedia locked the page and disallowed edits.
ANI then went to the courts and asked that the slander be removed -the courts agreed and asked Wikipedia to fix it.
Wikipedia refused, saying it is not a publisher; its a safe harbor. Yes, India has safe
Re: (Score:3)
When you say, "Wikipedia locked the page", what do you mean?
I see no evidence of the Foundation stepping in at all. The admin who protected the article isn't a party to this case, and it's ridiculous for the judge to ask "Wikipedia" why they did sometthing they didn't do.
TFA includes this gem:
“If you don’t want to comply with Indian regulations, then don’t operate in India,” the judge stated.
Wikipedia doesn't "operate in India". It's a website. When users in India request pages from it, they're delivered in accordance with Web protocols. Does the judge envision the website blocking known-Indian IPs?
Self confirming.. (Score:3)
Re: Self confirming.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
yes if the government pays your payroll and you do what the government orders you are definitely a tool.
They aren't wrong... but fuck 'em. (Score:3)
The open edit policy is dangerous. Crowd sourcing knowledge amplifies the most passionate voices, and they're often the ones most willing to sacrifice objective truth in the name of their own perceived greater good. Or in the name of hatred and bigotry. We all hope that level-headed cleanup crews come through and level the matter. It makes Wikipedia amazingly useful for non-contentious material, and increasingly suspect for edgier topics. Just look at the edit dance of assertion, correction, and restatement in the edit history. And interestingly, the most well defended an article through citation, the more impenetrable the barrier to entry becomes.
But... letting governments control the narrative to their liking is worse. The Indian government absolutely, assuredly, cannot be trusted as a gatekeeper of anything close to truth about themselves. They don't want to correct the record. That isn't useful to them. They want to lie, overtly and by omission.
Re: They aren't wrong... but fuck 'em. (Score:1)
India banning content (Score:2)
If India wants to ban Wikipedia (or anything else), what's the concern? Please, go ahead and ban stuff. Who gives a shit?