Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wikipedia Technology

India Issues Notice To Wikipedia Over Concerns of Bias (techcrunch.com) 83

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."

India Issues Notice To Wikipedia Over Concerns of Bias

Comments Filter:
  • bias to most (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @09:58AM (#64921119)
    Is someone or some bit of information they don't agree with.
    • Re:bias to most (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @10:06AM (#64921137) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        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

      • 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

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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

      • by Binestar ( 28861 )

        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.

    • has no idea what "bias" actually means. They just happen to like Wiki's bias.
  • I mean come on. We all know what India is about. News at 11.
  • After this statement that open editing is dangerous it's just as well they don't have a presence in India, that place is dangerous!
  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @10:23AM (#64921173)

    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.

    • 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

    • by jma05 ( 897351 )

      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 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

    • 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?

      • 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'

        • by Anonymous Coward

          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?

  • by encrypted ( 614135 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @11:02AM (#64921267) Homepage
    "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." It's not a government propaganda tool and we will spend every single government resource we have defending them. Err yeh, when the government cares about something, it's a government tool. Which I didn't know cause why would I read it's Wikipedia page, but I do know now that the government has told me it's a tool.
  • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2024 @11:23AM (#64921333)

    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.

    • Wikipedia page cites two non neutral sources (caravan and ken) and amplifies the non neutral sources as true. If Wikipedia a truly non biased organization, then they should cite some neutral sources too.
    • > 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.

  • If India wants to ban Wikipedia (or anything else), what's the concern? Please, go ahead and ban stuff. Who gives a shit?

  • 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.

  • 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]

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...