this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
75 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39019 readers
3277 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Wikipedia is embroiled in a major legal battle in India that experts say could impact how the online encyclopedia functions in the country.

The battle stems from a 20m rupee ($237,874; £183,012) lawsuit filed by India’s largest newswire service against Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, for allegedly publishing defamatory content against it. 

In the lawsuit in the Delhi high court, Asian News International (ANI) said a paragraph in its description on Wikipedia falsely accuses it of being "a propaganda tool for the incumbent [federal] government” and of "distributing material from fake news websites" and demanded the page be taken down.

Wikipedia says the content on the website is completely managed by volunteers and that the Foundation has no control over it.

In August, the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page - and threatened to shut down the website if it didn't comply with its orders.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 weeks ago

Legal trouble for telling the truth.

Good thing Modi isn’t some sort of autocrat, am I right?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago

Internet Archive (sued by publishers, then sued by music labels), now Wikipedia being sued... I'm just saying... Sounds like there's a declared war against historical archives and freedom of information.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago

Freedom of expression & communication are the first things to go when authoritarians advance their agendas...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

Rich people hate this one encyclopedia!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page

... Isn't the edit history public, though? They should be able to determine the IPs/users who are responsible for the edits.

I don't know how the Indian legal system works, but then if necessary you would try to compel Wikipedia to turn over contact information for those users, as with a subpoena in US law.

...

...

After looking over the article, Wikipedia has turned over user info to that effect. ANI is mad because they weren't allowed to edit their own page, essentially, which is disallowed on Wikipedia in general because of bias.

The hearing began in July after ANI petitioned the court, saying it had tried to change the allegedly defamatory material on Wikipedia but its edits were not accepted.

The ANI page was put under “extended confirmed protection” - a Wikipedia feature used to stop vandalism or abuse - where only users who have already done a certain number of edits can make changes to a page.