this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
394 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58970 readers
5023 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
394
Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court. (archive.ph)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Dot@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Original Link.

More info.

In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages. At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions". The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill".

On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article and warned that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site". In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Justice Manmohan said "I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes."

On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation due to an order from the court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

How can they block this for everyone?

[–] Dot@feddit.org 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Orginal Wikipedia Page.

The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (3 children)

This just makes me want to see it more.

[–] Smith6826@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hello Streisand effect.

[–] LockheedTheDragon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I think that part of the point of Wikimedia complying with the Order. Which you can read the Order at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation . Also the page the lawsuit is actually about is still up, but frozen.

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah, you know there's bound to be some juicy drama if they want to remove it so bad.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago

it's more of a blackmail. Wikipedia could have kept the article online for everybody but they would have deprived 1,5 billion people in India of the whole Wikipedia.

The judge on the case stated "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site".

On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation due to an order from the court.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Also, how can they sue a company based in another country.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

i'm guessing that it must be like Xitter in Brazil. If a company is present in a country, they may require a legal representation which can be held accountable.