Comment by fwipsy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fwipsy | Hacker News Reader

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International covers the lawsuit as well.

"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.[16][17][18] 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".[19][20] In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.[21] 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."[22]"

I suppose that this might not be the most objective article on Wikipedia. I don't have context for these statements. The way that Wikipedia quotes the judge makes it sound like he's threatening to order the Indian government to block Wikipedia because Wikipedia says that ANI is government propaganda. Is that really what's going on? If so it seems extremely ironic, to the point of tacitly admitting ANI's links to the Indian government. I know hacker news has many Indian readers; can they provide some context or an alternative perspective?

No. You read the statements right. Indian judges tend to give such statements, sometimes even worse. For example, recently one judge in unrelated case gave a statement that “criminalising marital rape is bit harsh”.

The main problem in this case is that Wikimedia hasn’t complied YET with high court orders of revealing people who did the edits. ANI just went ahead and filed contempt of court case before Wiki legal team could respond. I’m not sure if initial order came with some sort of deadline or not. I guess they are trying to leverage the delay in their favour.

In my opinion, ANI and many media houses in India are partially controlled by incumbent party ( BJP ) either by incentives or manipulation, you can read about Income tax raid on BBC and some other media outlets for understanding their methods.

This. They're following the Orban-Erdogan-Harper (International Democratic Union) playbook - purge the judiciary of independent judges, control the news media, and open culture-war fronts to distract and sap the strength of opposition while riling up your base. The situation in the world's largest democracy is a very dire one.

Indeed.

Start your own Wikipedia.

> purge the judiciary of independent judges, control the news media, and open culture-war fronts to distract and sap the strength of opposition while riling up your base

I don’t like whataboutism as much as anyone else, but if we’re going to criticise one country I’d like to point out that with Murdoch et al, you’ve got the same stuff happening in a lot of countries (US/UK/Aus off the top of my head) too. And unlike some places like the US, in India the judges are relatively much more independent politically.

What you’re likely missing is that a significant chunk of the population itself (and likely some judges) hold such views. You don’t need to politically cajole a judge if they already share the same view, do you?

Sounds like an authoritarian government that should be ignored.

Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.

Do they? What is the administrative division of governance in Liechtenstein?

I don't know, and you might, but we mostly live blissfully unaware in the undergirding bueracracy that surrounds us.

And if Liechtenstein calls for my head for saying that I know nothing about them, fantastic. I'll still never hear about it. The have no power where I am.

But a government threatens an internationally beloved and fundamental institution built by the volunteering work of individuals across the globe for the pure love of sharing knowledge because it accurately made a statement? The Indian high court may as well allow universal atrocities for all the respect for sovereignty it will generate at home and abroad.

A market with billions of users is a bit different than Liechtenstein

The economy is not the government, and banning sites clearly doesn't work well.

Liechtenstein is a member of interpol, so if they have a warrant for your arrest, that might actually be a problem for you, even if you are not going there.

Since I am not in any eurozone, I am outside of Interpol's reach, and even if I am enemy #1 in Liechtenstein no one would care. Interpol is still bound by international law and budget constraints. An arrest warrant looks fine and scary when issued by another country but extradition costs money even when there are agreements in place. I might be some minor value as a trading token between my locale and Liechtenstein, so my game to beat is to be more valuable to my locale than as a trading pawn. That's a pretty easy target.

> Since I am not in any eurozone, I am outside of Interpol's reach

Interpol has 196 member states.

Is this some strange fantasy roleplay?

If you go murder someone in Liechtenstein, there are only a small handful of places in the world where you are not guaranteed to be arrested and extradited back to Liechtenstein to face trial, at their government's request, should it ask and should you be found.

In that small handful of places, it's still a crapshoot.

Extradition costs are generally paid by the interested state, by the way.

You're missing the point. The parent comment isn't talking about murder but "defaming" someone on fucking Wikipedia. Even if Liechtenstein takes a big issue with this to the point of extradition, the government of wherever the parent commenter lives likely will not allow it.

And yeah, it is a fantasy because Liechtenstein isn't a backwards and stupid place like India is.

Usually the worst that happens for services in foreign countries is that they get blocked, and wikipedia will survive not being accessible in India.

If the choice is between revealing editors and exiting India altogether, doesn't seem like a hard choice. The people in India will suffer without Wikipedia, but most have VPNs to access blocked sites anyways.

People existed before Wikipedia so it's not a big deal if it's gone

Wikimedia India is an independent nonprofit, with executives in India who could be held in contempt by the Indian courts.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India

Wikimedia India has nothing to do with the operation of Wikipedia.org and does not appear to be a party to the case. It is just a local wikipedia editors club.

Unrelated:

>> "In my opinion, ANI and many media houses in India are partially controlled by incumbent party ( BJP ) either by incentives or manipulation, you can read about Income tax raid on BBC and some other media outlets for understanding their methods."

By the Indian court standards, HN would be compelled to globally take down this topic.

In theory that the quote starts with "In my opinion" should protect HN in this scenario.

Wikipedia almost exclusively words things as if they are know facts (because they usually are), which means they lose the safety of it being an opinion

The Wikipedia article in question says that ANI has been "accused of..."

Wikipedia is saying it's a known fact they've been accused of that, which this subthread shows is true as someone accused them of it.

Some illustrative examples:

- Judge Mahesh Sharma told TV channels that "the peahen gets pregnant" only by "swallowing the tears of the peacock".

- The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a rape accused government accused after the survivor’s mother expressed that she has no objection to the same.

- In a bizarre order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping and impregnating a 17-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on a condition that he marries he after she attains the majority age of 18.(Tamil Nadu)

- Granting pre arrest bail to a rape accused, Karnataka High Court took sexual violence jurisprudence back by decades.The court speculated why the complainant did not approach the court earlier when the accused was allegedly asking her for sexual favours. The court also questioned why the complainant went to her office late night and did not object to consumption of alcohol. The court said that the complainant’s explanation that she fell asleep after the alleged crime is “unbecoming of a woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished”.

Just memorizing law to a great extent doesn't elevate judges above societal prejudices and backwardness.

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40116001

[1]: https://sabrangindia.in/article/delhi-hc-grants-pre-arrest-b....

[2]: https://sabrangindia.in/madras-hc-grants-pocso-accused-bail-....

[3]: https://sabrangindia.in/article/falling-asleep-after-being-r...

That's an actual quote? That's so, juvenile. And it admits pretty much all of the 'defamation' that Wikipedia is being sued for.

Also a bit stupid to ask someone to not work in India if they point out they have no legal presence there. If they really have no presence in India it might make most sense to just call their bluff. The government does indeed have the power to block the webpage but there's no winning against a government that is willing to go that far. One can only hope that blocking wikipedia is unpopular enough to give the government pause.

Yes. This is why a lot of people leave India. The legal system is crap. And it has effects on everything else.

What a joke of a country.

You mean what a joke of a government?

Why not both?

Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com