This is an archive of past discussions about Asian News International. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Need for a community response to WMF on revealing an Indian editor's identity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussions on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) have revealed that WMF intends to reveal the identity of an Indian editor to a Dehli Court on 8 November. There seems to be support for a community response to dissuade WNF from taking such action but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the procedures involved. It has been suggested a letter should be drafted to WMF expressing our concerns. I could draft such a letter but need advice on how to proceed further.--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The future of the community appears very bleak if the news that WMF is giving up the personal information of Wikipedia editors and disclosing their identities is accurate, as reported in various media. This creates the impression that the editors and the larger community are in charge of the edits, so I will suggest the following community response.
Every Wikipedia article must be owned by an administrator, who will also handle any disputes or legal ramifications arising from the article.
The editing community need not have to be anonymous; Wikipedia editors must be identified. This will stop undesired edits, edit Wars & sock puppetry.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Australia Today affair
ANI has spread the news that Canada's Trudeau government "blocked" the "social media handles and page" of The Australia Today (actually run by overseas Indians) after it covered a press conference featuring Indian minister S Jaishankar. Indian media has been talking non-stop about this alleged censorship in light of tensions over the Nijjar case.
Correct. The Hindu reported something similar but shortly took it down afterwards for factual inaccuracy. Debunked rightly by The Wire and BOOM Live. Even day they call out Wikipedia for fake news (which is NOT fake news), and odd day rampantly do the same. Godi media for a reason, huh. Lunar-akaunto／talk08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Request for administrator: Edit notice needed
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Since this article is the subject of an active court case in India, with the Delhi High Court having asked the WMF to identify editors who have edited it, there should be an edit notice warning editors. Something like: "Warning: This article is the subject of a current court case in India. If you edit it, your edit may become part of legal action, including a request for your IP to be revealed to the court." Since the article is under CTOP, I believe the edit notice should be imposed by an administrator. (Also, I don't think I have the technical competence required to add it.)
@Firefangledfeathers: I suggest something along the lines that Yngvadottir has proposed. It's factual and neutral; the current one may well be "short and precise", but it's highly inflammatory, something the WMF obviously wants to avoid. I mean, I know WMF–community relations can sometimes be frosty (verging on Arctic), but are we deliberately going out of our way to poke the bear?For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty inappropriate use of advanced tools to create such a template despite calls for a consensus to be found first, being our established approach. The case has been ongoing for ~five months, a few more hours/days will make little difference. SerialNumber5412915:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
That edit notice is highly inappropriate. It implies that whoever wrote it is threatening to sue any editor who edits the article. Take it down immediately and wait for a consensus version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that Launchballer's wording is provocative. I don't think there should be a link to the protest letter. Maybe to the section within the article? I believe the mention of a current case makes for enough of a warning. But I do think there is some urgency; the chilling effect is unfortunately real because of the WMF's response. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
