Is the Wikimedia Foundation about to sell out its editors—and its principles?
Is the Wikimedia Foundation about to sell out its editors—and its principles?
At a time of rising authoritarianism, the Wikimedia Foundation faces a choice it may celebrate—or regret—forever
Update: They've already "sold out" the editors.
https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2024/12/21/does-wikipedia-protect-your-privacy/
Anyone can take a look at what the Wikipedia editors themselves are saying about the matter.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_Delhi_court
The admins from India have only been accused of defamation. Now that the court has their identities, the actual statements will be examined to see if they do actually contain defamation. So anyone can go on a fishing expedition to get someone’s identity, and then say ‘oops, no laws were broken after all’, and now that we know who you are, it would be a shame if someone fell out of a window or something. And of course whatever is in the “sealed” document is now out, India is one of the biggest places for bribery there is. They are also saying the documents will be unsealed at the end of the court case, so it might be cheaper to just wait until they are published.
-
Edit:
With Jimmy Wales’ assent, the WMF removed and locked the page. As unhappy as Wikipedians were about it, blocking content can be temporary. If the Foundation reveals these editors’ identities, this is a decision it can never reverse.
Guess I'll be watching this one closely.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Gag orders in the US are issued very rarely.
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.
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
and half the population (women) don't have the same rights as men
Backed up by something or just your feelings
Backed on Global Gender Gap Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
Or any other gender equality index that always put India on the bottom. Very bad.
You can edit wikipedia fully privately, if you live in a similar jurisdiction. There are some limitations on Tor, but from these articles it sounds like it's possible to work it around:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Open_proxies
It's not super easy, but it doesn't sound like some insurmountable obstacle.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Permanently Deleted
More authoritarian bull shit from India and the BJP.
i'm being sold out!? :(
Well I never
Doesn't apply in this case, it's about a decision that is still pending
What's going on here?
You can click the article to find out!
I can?
https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles
Edit: Don't downvote this person please. They just phrased their question badly.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
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?
What are the differences in those sites’ governance which would immunize them from a similar legal attack by the BJP?
They probably don’t have half the legal staff of Wikipedia.
Who actually uses those sites
In response to your edits:
Have you actually read your replies?
That edit was intended for people who downvoted the comment for unknown reasons.