Jump to content

Talk:Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 20:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Valereee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 74 past nominations.
  • Article is new enough (created 10/10), long enough, sourced, presentable, and no copyvio detected. Hook is interesting, short enough and supported by in-line citation. QPQ satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Cbl62! Valereee (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and Cbl62: I was going to promote this per the callout at WT:DYK, however I'm sure there's a policy that says that even content about Wikipedia needs to be cited, and so some of the Background section would deserve {{cn}}.--Launchballer 19:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, oh, good point. I've removed for now, I'll keep looking to see if I can find mention somewhere. I know it must be out there. Valereee (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Previous rulings involving Wikipedia

[edit]

@Valereee: I fail to understand the relevance of including the court case Hewlett Packard India Sales vs. Commissioner of Customs in the said section. Earlier part of the section mentions adversarial actions by Indian govt/courts against wikipedia, whereas this case involves an Indian court cautioning a small-time customs official against using wikipedia as a source in litigation, which is hardly noteworthy besides being irrelevant. — hako9 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentioned the two other cases as related. I'm afraid I can't get to that source right now, must have hit my limit for whatever time period, iabot is timing out, and wayback is down lol...can you see it? Valereee (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send a mail. — hako9 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! So I figured if the source thought these other cases were relevant enough to give them three paragraphs in a not-long piece, we should at least mention them? Valereee (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 paras btw. The Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organisation case is relevant. Intelligence is not a trait that is needed to be a journo in India, imo. I don't know if they are paid by the word. Anyways, we don't have to follow what the source says to a tee. — hako9 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Why don't you trim, and I'll take a look? Valereee (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Valereee (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely happy with the "Previous actions against Wikipedia"([by whom?]) heading (the content is fine), but I can't think of a good one atm. "Previous issues regarding Wikipedia in India" is a bit vague. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I struggled with it. Open to whatever. Valereee (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a short section, so I'd suggest knocking it into an earlier paragraph.--Launchballer 09:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's short, but I think it's justified. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we (as in this particular WP-article) got press

[edit]

Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page

I quote: "The Court also took strong objection against Wikipedia allowing a page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' to be published in relation to the present case. It asked the platform to seek instructions in this regard and listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday. "What we are finding is extremely disturbing that you think you are beyond the ambit of law. Look at the page. You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter," the Court remarked."

What are we (as in the part of the WP-community that bothered to edit this article) disclosing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the court seems to dislike the mention of Chawla's name.[1]. We can remove that, I guess, but it's certainly widely reported per WP:BLPNAME:[2], and not just for this event:[3]. Apparently the doings of high court judges are considered interesting by the press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @JSutherland (WMF) if you have any input. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I removed Chawla's name from the lead, but it's still in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove His order to WMF to release the identities of the editors who made the edits has been called censorship and a threat to the flow of information., written in the lead. It states in wikivoice what is attributed to two persons (Nishant Shah and Nikhil Pahwa) only. See WP:VOICE. No point in removing mention of the Judge's name. That is a matter of widely known fact. Regarding your question of what are we disclosing that is not public info...afaik sub-judice doctrine prevents any person from influencing matters pending in courts or diminishing the integrity of legal proceedings. It doesn't necessarily matter if the info is in public domain or not. There's a lot of discretion involved in determining what negatively influences pending legal proceedings in Indian courts (sec. 4,7 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971). — hako9 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but IMO that lead-text is not glaringly against VOICE, it's a reasonable summary of the current Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation#Reaction section. I have no strong opinion either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to attribute it in the lead also. Happy to move the sourcing into the lead, too. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting the proceedings of the court does not fall within contempt, unless there is a specific bar like in camera hearing. Also, the observations of the court unless in form of an order does not require WMF to take a decision to take down an article. Supreme Court of India will side with WMF if the court is approached. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting the proceedings of the court does not fall within contempt Yes obviously. The sentence I quoted above which has now been edited, is not necessarily "fair and accurate reporting" under Indian law, imo, because what's fair and accurate is not defined. It is a comment made by noteworthy individuals though, so may merit inclusion. And leave aside oral observations, WMF can choose not to obey any orders by any Indian courts too. — hako9 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations of the Bench of the Chief Justice of The Delhi High Court (verbatim?)

[edit]

This page [titled ANI v. Wikipedia] will have to be taken down by your client in case he even wants to be heard. Otherwise we will not hear him. And we’ll direct the single judge not to hear him. You can’t put the single judge in fear or threaten him.
— https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1845722727635701876

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Court took umbrage at this line:

The judge in the case, Navin Chawla, has threatened to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country.

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judge's threat is being twisted into a Wikipedia's threat? How nice! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The words of the Madras High Court in 2023 come to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the WMF:s lawyer is now asking the foundation for guidance. I wonder what they'll tell him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like all good overpaid lawyers, they'll ask their client to comply (i.e take down the article and disclose editors identities). — hako9 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF might consider that problematic. Well, a lot of Indian media is on case, so I guess we'll find out. Indian Wikipedians might want to do some research into how Turkish Wikipedians dealt with things 2017-2020, just in case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really see WMF taking down the article. While they have the theoretical powers (WP:OFFICEACTION), I expect the community to not react very kindly. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation&oldid=1251274366"