India Issues Notice To Wikipedia Over Concerns of Bias (techcrunch.com) 101
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:4, 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:1, Insightful)
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: Bias on Wikipedia? (Score:1)
Around 0.1 percent.
Since i work in call center security, I am aware that MOST scam call centers are in the US. India is either third or fourth in the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Indian Supreme Court is actually more independent than the US Supreme Court - the judges are chosen by a collegium of judges and the only role that the government has is to rubber stamp the choices - it can delay the rubber stamp for 6 months, but cannot really do much more than that. Compare with the US, where the SC judges are 'selected' by the executive and 'approved' by Congress.
Now, wrt the ethnic cleansing charge on Modi and his cohort, the Supreme Court looked into those charges, figured it neede
Re: Bias on Wikipedia? (Score:1)
Lol you guys really will just say anything as long as it is about some non white country. The elected prime minister currently running a minority government unable to pass critical laws somehow becomes a "terrorist" and the voters become "harboring terrorists".
You guys have really sold yourselves to foreign secret services, namely ISI.
Come back in 20 years when another Osama bites the hand that is feeding it today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
So does America - just look at what they did to Bin Laden!
The killings of OBL and Nijjar are not analogous.
OBL openly took credit for 9/11. There was no question he was a terrorist.
There is no hard evidence tying Nijjar to violence.
There was no path to legal extradition for OBL because Pakistan wasn't (officially) aware that he was in their country.
India and Canada have an extradition treaty. India had access to Canadian courts and could have extradited Nijjar with clear evidence that was likely to prevail in court and guarantees of a fair trial. America had no su
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)
They consider it unsatisfactory that your website exists ANYWHERE. They are not satisfied that you are outside India and they don't have to read it.
They're about to hold Wikipedia in contempt for not giving them private user data even though Wikipedia has no operation inside India.
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)
it wasn't about India unless "Asian News International" is an agent of the Indian government.
ANI is an agent of the Indian government.
The government and BJP (the ruling party) give ANI money and tell them what to publish.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, just like China pays you to propagate its viewpoint and steal American tech and send over to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful now, India might sue Slashdot next in an attempt to discover your true identity.
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:bias to most (Score:5, Insightful)
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 to reinforcement of their biases, even if they desire objective information, and so what they wind up getting is just more bias.
So, I am going to take the position that India's government is correct: Wikipedia is biased. I am unsure if it is biased in whatever specific way they are worried about, but "that information source is biased" is a true statement 99% of the time.
If you truly want unbiased information, the best you can do is get the same info from a variety of sources, including and especially ones that anger you. You don't have to take what any of them say at face value, but if you want to overcome your own bias, even a little, you need to have an open mind to the positions that you disagree with, listening to their reasons even if you never agree with them, in an effort to tease out from that at least a little more balance in your perspective on whatever the issue is.
Re: (Score:3)
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:2, Insightful)
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:3)
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: (Score:2)
At least wikipedia editors think these ones have that problem. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That template just indicates a lack of inline citations. It doesn't mean the statement is false, or even unsourced.
Re: (Score:2)
Inline citations are pretty important for determining the provenance of a particular claim, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume if there were hundreds of thousands coming up with a dozen or so wouldn't be too difficult.
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)
And this is exactly what the Indian courts said to Wikipedia, but they believed they were above the law.
India has to deal with this earlier too - Twitter had decided it did not need to adhere to take-down notices from India, until it was stared down by the Indian government and the Indian courts. Effing Americans think they can do business in a country without adhering to its laws, just like the Brits used to think selling opium in China was OK because the Chinese governments ban on opium was interference w
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:2)
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
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
Bullshit. This is in no way slander. Slander is spoken, it would be libel when it is written.
Re: (Score:1)
Oooh! You got me, pardner! Hold me closer, Ed, it's getting dark. Tell Auntie Em to let Old Yeller Out. Tell Tiny Tim I won't be coming home this Christmas. Tell Scarlett I do give a damn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
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:Just as well they don't have a presence in Indi (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (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?
Re: The real story is this! (Score:1)
Then Wikipedia should share the identities, as it knows them, with the courts. And the IP addresses they use. It refuses to do so, claiming free speech and privacy issues. Which is such BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this is a Commonwealth country, based upon British legal foundations, there are no free speech protections. Thus, "slander" is a very serious thing, vastly more so than in America. You're frankly not allowed, by law, to say bad things about important people without having solid proof. Whereas in America, slander is no big deal and is considered to just be opinion and that the target needs to lighten up.
Culture shock, in other words. Thus some people here are thinking what's the big deal, it'
Re: (Score:1)
Written defamation is libel.
But if India takes this alleged libel so seriously, why is the Wikipedia article the target, rather than the sources it cites?
Re: The real story is this! (Score:1)
Actually, Wikipedia does operate in India. It regularly runs donation drives in India, where payments can be made in Rupees, thru UPI, which works only with Indian bank accounts. I know because I donate.
Its super convenient isn't it - I operate in India when I want to collect money, but when I have to comply with the law, suddenly I have no operations in India...
Self confirming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Self confirming.. (Score:1)
Says the anonymous coward
They aren't wrong... but fuck 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
> The Indian government absolutely, assuredly, cannot be trusted as a gatekeeper of anything close to truth about themselves.
Name a government that can be. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I started with the plural, "governments". So, I agree with you. India is at the center of the article though, so the focus shifts there.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the alternatives? Privately funding knowledge amplifies the richest voices. The situation is nearly the same when using state funds for knowledge, since the output is most likely going to reflect the political opinions of those in power.
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?
No Onions (Score:2)
Perhaps it's time for Wikipedia to offer an onion site address. Given that some guy pulled put together a demo in 2017 https://www.vice.com/en/article/theres-now-a-dark-web-version-of-wikipedia-tor-alec-muffett/ [vice.com], that might need to be brushed off. Yes, your Tor traffic is almost certainly not going to exit into another restrictive area, but it's always best to keep your traffic entirely within the Tor network.
The government of India is a dictatorship (Score:2)
Current government of India is democratic in name only. The reality is that it is a dictatorship in practice and run by an old man that has lost his mind. Narendra Modi is 74 years old and is unfit for this job. I am sure that this government of India is going to collapse soon, because people don't last forever.
This is also happening in India.
https://www.france24.com/en/as... [france24.com]