Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the Foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Donation banners

[edit]

Why are these banners so persistent? I've managed to get no less than 10 of these banners in the space of just a few minutes. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

88, do you allow tracking cookies from wikipedia.org in your browser? If not, the site won't remember that you've dismissed the banner already. Another option is to create an account (it's free and a single step; doesn't even require email confirmation), which will allow you to hide donation banners. Folly Mox (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin September Issue 1

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the first half of September 2024. Please help Translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations Talking: 2024 continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on Mediawiki.org

  • Users of all Wikis will have access to Wikimedia sites as read-only for a few minutes on September 25, starting at 15:00 UTC. This is a planned datacenter switchover for maintenance purposes.
  • The Alternative Text suggested edits feature has now been fully deployed to production on the iOS App for Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and French Wikipedias! This feature, part of WE1.2, is designed to enhance how newcomers add alt text to images, aiming to improve accessibility and engagement. For more details, visit the project page and explore the new feature in the app!
  • Editors and volunteer developers interested in data visualization can now test the new software for charts. Its early version is available on beta Commons and beta Wikipedia. This is an important milestone before making charts available on regular wikis. You can read more about this project update and help test the charts.
  • A new draft text of a policy discussing the use of Wikimedia’s APIs has been published on Meta-Wiki. The draft text does not reflect a change in policy around the APIs; instead, it is an attempt to codify existing API rules. Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome on the proposed update’s talk page until September 13 or until those discussions have concluded.
  • More recent tech updates from Tech News.
  • The latest status updates from Wikifunctions.
  • Help us find WikiProjects or other online collaboration spaces!


Annual Goals Progress on Equity See also a list of all movement events: on Meta


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Board and Board committee updates See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Wikimedia World · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

Previous editions of this bulletin are on Meta. Let askcac@wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin September Issue 2

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the second half of September 2024. Please help Translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations

Wikimedia at the United Nations General Assembly HQ
Wikimedia event at the United Nations

Talking: 2024 continues

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on Mediawiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Equity See also a list of all movement events: on Meta


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Foundation statements


Other Movement curated newsletters & news See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Wikimedia World · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

Previous editions of this bulletin are on Meta. Let askcac@wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 17:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact malfunctioning

[edit]

See Talk:JD Vance#Add A Fact: "Walz vs Vance in VP debate" where Add A Fact has recommended something that not only isn't a fact... It fails verification. Add A Fact doesn't appear to have pulled a fact from the source, Add A Fact appears to have made up a questionable fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Horse Eye's Back, thanks for flagging this. To clarify, the way this tool works requires the user (must be logged in and autoconfirmed on English Wikipedia) to manually select a snippet of text in a source (in this case, a Reuters article) to check against Wikipedia. That text snipped itself is not modified in any way by the tool (it's not even possible for the user to modify it once they've elected to look it up on Wikipedia via this tool). So I suspect what happened here is actually that the source itself (i.e., the Reuters article) was edited by Reuters after this user found the claim and sent it as a suggestion to the talk page via the tool. There appears to be an "updated a day ago" message at the top of the article, indicating that this may be the case. So I think the user of this tool unintentionally caught some possibly-fishy information that Reuters itself was putting out there and then walking back... Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation of how the tool works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin October Issue 1

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the first half of October 2024. Please help Translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations

WikiArabia 2024
WikiArabia 2024

Talking: 2024 continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure

See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on Mediawiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Equity

See also a list of all movement events: on Meta


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity

See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Board and Board committee updates

See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news

See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Wikimedia World · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

Previous editions of this bulletin are on Meta. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 23:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation

[edit]

is becoming quite interesting: 'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI

Does the WMF have any input for the Wikipedians who edit in the general area? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, Court Reporters also report that WMF's lawyer has been willing to provide the sought details in a "sealed cover" and that WMF plans to comply with the takedown order. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF's lawyer has been willing to provide the sought details in a "sealed cover". Are you claiming that WMF has disclosed the identities of the ANI editors? That's a pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Court Reporting Portals — including Live Law and Bar&Bench — report that WMF's lawyer was willing to provide details about the "authors" of the ANI article but in a "sealed cover". But the Court didn't accede to such a compromise and wanted it to be filed in public.
The part about "sealed cover" is not reported in mainstream media widely but see Rohini's comments in this Hindustan Times report, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another not-so-established Court-Reporting portal:

Adv Sibal [lawyer appearing for WMF]: I will disclose the name of the author in a sealed cover.

Court: why in a sealed cover?

I doubt that the portal was making this conversation up given how low the bar for invoking contempt jurisdiction appears to be in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raises a number of questions... Most importantly what is meant by subscriber information? Most of us edit pseudo-anonymously after all and the Foundation doesn't have our names, birth dates, etc and technical info like IP can tell you what device the edits are being made from but not who is making the edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh — IP address is considered as PII (though it doesn't disclose device details; are you confusing with user-agent?)? For example, if the address is from an Indian ISP, the Court will compel it to give up the name of the person the IP address was assigned to, during the timeframe of the edits.
Now, I do not know for how long Indian ISPs retain their IP assignment logs. For a comparison, in most European states, it's about 6-12 months. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah theres a few different bits of technical info, but none actually tell you the author unless I'm missing something. So how does WMF know who the author is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All major ISPs in India require their subscribers to produce personal details like Aadhaar at inception. All ISPs are "intermediaries" and are bound by Indian IT Act. So WMF's disclosure of IP addresses is all that the Indian authorities would need to personally identify editors if they are based in India. Read [1] for further info. — hako9 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't how the court could figure out the name from the technical details and a subsequent investigation... The question is how the WMF has a name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. They have IP addresses though. — hako9 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can they "disclose the name of the author" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to even if they wanted to. Disclosing IP would be as good as disclosing the name in India. How do you not get this? — hako9 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that... But the lawyer said name not IP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer probably misspoke because admins do not have the NDA requirement like checkuser/oversighters. The Indian judge/lawyer also seem to have misspoken when they said 3 admins. I think they meant editors. — hako9 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could have, but at best it's ambiguous so best to continue to seek clarification from the WMF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Names" is an imprecise substitute for "Identifying Information". How do you not get this?
These are fragments from an oral argumentation in a court before ~60 y. judges who, going by the literature on Indian Courts, are usually not very technically adept. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense.
I do not know where you are going ahead with this — conspiracy theory territory where WMF has somehow managed to access our IRL Identities / WMF's lawyer being either incompetent or taking the Court for a ride / .. — but this is my last comment on this topic. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are blowing this out of proportion, there are a large number of scenarios in which the WMF might be privy to the IRL identity of an editor. I don't think that it hurts to get clarity on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI had asked for details of three "administrators" — do note that their usage of administrator might be lax and not correspond to what we understand as admins; publicly available court records do not mention the names of these three entities — who supposedly inserted and restored defamatory content in the article, from Wikimedia. These are the "authors" referred to, by WMF's lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did we start make admins verify their identity at some point? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. But, because of a couple of roles I have filled over the years (OTRS and ARBCOM), I have had to provide WMF with identifying information. The WMF has at least the same access to editor information as do checkusers. If you put your mind to it, you can make it difficult for anyone to identify you, but most editors leave breadcrumbs, and some of us have left a lot. Donald Albury 20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither OTRS (VRTS) nor ArbCom required ID from me. Nor would I give it. Cabayi (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi pretty sure I had to provide it. That was before your time though. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi and Doug Weller, identifying to the WMF did used to require sending them a copy of some ID but that has since changed and you no longer do. I don't remember exactly when it changed but it was after December 2014 when I was elected to the Arbitration Committee, it's possible it coincided with the introduction of the current Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy in November 2018. My recollection is that the copies of the ID were retained only long enough to verify you were who you claimed to be and were then destroyed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would have been one of those presenting my ID then. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those applying for Grants with the Foundation are required to disclose their identity. – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): out of curiosity does the WMF attach an IRL identity which could be provided in court to either my or TrangaBellam's account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I know of WMF and Wikimedia culture, I would not expect WMF to disclose any private information about an individual editor to a foreign court. WMF has a history of sticking to open source values in foreign courts even if it means being blocked for years by that nation's ISPs. I think this would be a great opportunity for someone at WMF to clarify what exactly is being disclosed to the Indian courts about our editors. If nothing private like IP addresses were disclosed, this would be an excellent time to set the record straight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I agree about the culture of WMF. But given that Wikimedia retains no private data except IP addresses and UAs (correct me if I am wrong on this point), I do not see what else their lawyer could have been willing to provide only under "sealed cover". And I support the call for WMF to clarify on these issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also retains your email address if you set it, of course. Which is much closer to "identifying information" than anything else. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true. Email adresses are stored as long as the user keeps it linked. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite was just noting at article talk that WMF did disclose US IPs at least once in 2007 per Video_Professor#Video_Professor_lawsuit. Apparently only Comcast kept the claimant from being able to access personal details. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but twitter/X warns their users before disclosing their IPs on orders of a foreign/local court, when they receive and comply with takedown requests like some mentioned here [2]. If the counsel for WMF has no qualms about throwing wikipedia editors under the bus should push come to shove, shouldn't wmf warn the specific users whose IPs they are willing to disclose? — hako9 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy:Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that WMF would have to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) in USA lawsuits since WMF is based in USA. My hypothesis is that WMF would not disclose PII to foreign courts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first case at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation talks about WMF declining a British court order in 2011. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than 24 hours and the Wikimedia Foundation has not taken down the page. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next meeting in court is on monday, I think. Stay tuned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: ANI asks HC to initate contempt case against Wikipedia, says 36 hr deadline over. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, notwithstanding the fact that WMF's lawyer did broach a "sealed cover" approach, WMF appealed the order — this time, being represented by a different lawyer — petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before ordering disclosure. However, the appeal was not granted and additionally, WMF was asked to take down the page(s) on the litigation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just reading that article, it's quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the same lawyer, Akhil Sibal, representing WMF in the main case as well as the appeal. The appeal was a bit pointless. See below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the case at this point is that it is at "ground 0", meaning it hasn't taken off. ANI wants to sue somebody for defamation, it doesn't know who. It can't sue WMF because, under the Indian law, WMF is just an "intermediary", equivalent to a television cable company that just trasmits signals. The people that can be sued are the authors of the content, of which there are probably many. Somehow or the other, ANI narrowed down to three editors who, it believes, can be held liable for defamation. So it is weighing in on WMF to reveal their identities. The court, quite reasonably, agrees that it needs to be done. Unless they appear in court and plead, the case doesn't even begin. So, when the WMF lawyer says, I will provide the information in a "sealed cover", I think he doesn't undrestand what is going on (in fact "clueless" would be more accurate). There are only two ways out. Either WMF reveals the identities of the editors so that they can appear in court and plead. Or, WMF waives its status as an "intermediary", and pleads on their behalf. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMF has told us the information is in the US, that they will only release under U.S. law, and told us what those laws are under which a foreign tribunal could get their hands on the information. I hope WMF thinks the court is already pounding sand. fiveby(zero) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is missing the WMF's argument that the court must first make a prima facie determination as to whether the content was defamatory before it orders the WMF to turn over identifying information they have on editors. That determination really can't be made, when the Wikipedia content is (1) true, and (2) simply a summary of public facts already published elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Chawla did make some remarks in the initial stages, which sounded like he made that determination. But to contest that, WMF would have had to plead, which it has refused to do, claiming itself to be an "intermediary". Recall again an "intermediary" is like a cable company that just transmits signals. Twitter has tried to do something like that a year ago, to contest the blocks the government was ordering. It lost. The judge said that it had no locus standi because it was just an "intermediary". The only people that could contest the blocks would be the authors of the content. If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say. So the people that can be held to be liable are the authors of those sources, not Wikipedia. But that point has not been brought up in front of the court yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 Per B&B, Sibal made the argument:

One of the articles hyperlinked to ANI’s page is of The Caravan. When Wikipedia argued that the publication had not been made party to the case, the Court called it a convenient answer:

An article published by say X magazine which is read by a hundred people, you don’t bother about it…it does not have the gravitas that it deserves a suit of defamation. If it comes to Wikipedia, it is not going to have a viewership of hundred, it may have it in millions and then it becomes a cause of disturbance.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed. This is probably part of what transpired in the 20th August hearing, which I was asking about a while ago. It did not get reported in the press at that time. The WMF lawyer gives me the impression of trying to bargain with the judge(s) rather than to assert our rights forcefully on legal grounds. My disappointment continues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of our fundamental msision is to bring to the public, knowledge that might be known only to a select few. We cannot be faulted for doing this. We are not producing our own knowledge here, only collating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but at least for me, there is a difference between "knowledge that might be known only to a select few" and "pushing fringe sources, limited to a selected few (for good reasons), as authoritative to defame someone or something, thereby promoting the fringe source in the process." This issue is not just limited to ANI, but practically applies to all Indian media news channels that do not bash the incumbent government day and night, using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News. Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? Please do a quick check regarding this if you don't believe me. It's not just about ANI. When someone starts using these sources as authoritative to defame something or someone, it becomes difficult to determine who is at fault—the source, the people pushing those sources, Wikipedia itself, the Wikipedia community that allows this, or the person who feels they are being defamed because they are trying to censor "free speech." The thing is, no discussion will result in anything unless all parties are determined that they are right and the other is wrong. Let's just leave this to the court. My comments on this issue end here. DangalOh (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? This would likely be a content-related discussion if it arises, and should be held on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN if it warrants an input from the wider community. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News Wikipedia has WP:RSN, where the editor community decides collectively whether a source is reliable or not. You can start a discussion on a source there, if you wish to. — hako9 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say There's no motion to dismiss like the US, in India. Cause of action and merit is decided in the pre-admission stage. — hako9 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quashing in a criminal defamation case is a difficult prospect. This is because – to simplify – under Section 499 of the IPC, a prima facie offence of defamation is made out with the existence of a defamatory imputation, which has been made with the intention or knowledge that it will cause harm. This is, evidently, a very low threshold.

Section 499 also contains a set of exceptions to the rule (such as statements that are true and in the public interest, statements made in good faith about public questions, and so on) – but here’s the rub: these exceptions only kick in at the stage of trial, by which time the legal process has (in all likelihood) dragged on for years. What we essentially have, therefore, is one of those situations where the cost of censorship is low (instituting prima facie credible criminal proceedings), but the cost of speech is high (a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive trial, with the possibility of imprisonment).

Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statement from WMF (to community?):

    Hi everyone,

    I, Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary, am a Senior Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal Department. The Foundation is in receipt of your message(s) regarding the developments in India around a defamation suit filed by ANI.

    We are currently reviewing the recent order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and will take all necessary actions, in accordance with applicable laws, to ensure that the people of India continue to have the right to share and access free and reliable knowledge in an open and safe online environment. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to safeguarding the rights of Wikimedia community members and preserving uninterrupted access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in India. As a standard practice, we do not share specific details of ongoing legal cases that are sub-judice.

    Additionally, since this is an active legal case, we recommend caution while sharing, discussing, or speculating on the topic. Please contact ca@wikimedia.org for any trust and safety concerns. Also, please direct any press inquiries you receive to pr@wikimedia.org.

    On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation

    Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary

    Senior Counsel
    — https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg15179.html

    TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam, and why share this now? Kinda belated, no?
    1. This was not addressed to the broader English Wikipedia community, but the Indian community, since this was sent to Wikimedia India mailing list.
    2. This was sent on 20 September 2024. https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/DEKVYIS7ZT2SJKK63TDIHRSC72FUSOYD/
    – robertsky (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; I read it as 20 October 2024. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF action

[edit]

And now WMFOffice has taken down the page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Which is one of two occasions since 2020 in which the WMF has accepted a non-DMCA-related content request (the other being some edits to fr:Dorcel) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to rewrite WP:NOTCENSORED now? Currently it reads "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may as well get rid of NOTCENSORED. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT describe the way the community conducts itself, and nothing more. WP:NOTCENSORED survived Damon Dash being taken down for two entire years, for example. It can survive this. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, I think it's something to consider. Is it really not censored? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTCENSORED could mention OA somehow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an instance NOTCENSORED being ignored via WP:Ignore all rules. And I say that as someone skeptical of that policy in general. I don't think it requires an kind of rewrite. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think IAR is about community conduct as well. OA goes beyond that, but can include stuff (like in this case) that can appear like censorship. So I think NOTCENSORED could include something like "For X actions, see WP:OA." Or "or the law of the United States" could have the addition "... and in some cases, other countries." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR does not apply, as this action does not improve or maintain Wikipedia (unless, arguably, it is a good-faith attempt to preemptively maintain India's access to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is the opposite of improving Wikipedia, and it's a bad precedent. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant meta-policy is not IAR but WP:CONEXCEPT. NOTCENSORED exists as a matter of editorial consensus, and the WMF is exempt from that. Whether this was a good use of that exemption is something we'll probably only be able to say some time after the dust has settled. For now, histrionic responses (not like yours, GGS, but some others') help nothing and may risk making things harder for the WMF (and thus all of us), given that the court does not seem to recognize much distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really unhelpful at this juncture to characterize matters in this way: this is part of a live legal dispute, and it's pretty clear to me that the WMF's strategy is in service of getting content back up. They're taking what they see to be the least obstructive means—the least censored means possible frankly. I'll put it like this: if all of Wikipedia got censored in the largest country in the world on the pretext of WMF violating this order at this stage—I would hold them partially but meaningfully responsible for that because they fell for easy bait and handed them that pretext. It would be a tremendous fuckup. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the action on the French Wikipedia is also pretty recent. Is there coverage or discussion on it? Nardog (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of any. I stumbled across it when I was checking the WMF's transparency reports to see how rare this kind of office action is. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going by Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages, not that common, at least not on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this: it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Notification of office action. Nardog (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. The Italian/German action from 2021 is not reported at the 2021 transparency report where I would have expected it.
Looks like I failed to read the logs correctly, the transparency reports don't include all such actions, and the French Wikipedia action mentioned at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2024-1/content isn't that at all but the deletion of fr:François Billot de Lochner (especially since those edits are in October and thus would go in the not-yet-released 2024-2 report). * Pppery * it has begun... 05:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they were lying about this then? The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. I thought i knew what those protections were, and must have misread some of the claims made about Wikipedia. fiveby(zero) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy about this at all. Why should we bend over to censorship? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, some version of "our lawyers say we must." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the WMF office engage with us here and provide additional details?
I would like to know what our options our. For example, we’ve accepted being blocked in various countries before - why isn’t that outcome acceptable here? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because of what the court's requests entail. That, and the large amounts of editors and potential editors in India. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it would be good if the WMF could be clear to the community about what penalties the court threatened, and which of those penalties the WMF believes the court could enforce.
If the only realistically enforceable penalty is blocking, then I think that is a decision that should be devolved to the community and let us decide whether we want to go down the slope of deferring to censorship, or if we wish to continue rejecting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, Wikipedia is blocked right now, not only in India but everywhere. fiveby(zero) 06:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Obviously it's not blocked everywhere, as I'm making this edit (from the United States) without applying any kind of anti-circumvention measures. Do you have some evidence to support that hyperbolic claim? * Pppery * it has begun... 06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the real Wikipedia blocks are the friends we made along the way. (???) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they’re saying the because the WMF has removed the page in response to this lawsuit, there is a global partial block on Wikipedia.
It’s a reasonable perspective, in my view, and asks the question of how much are we willing to let Indian courts control the content that our global audience views. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one is worried about you Pppery, except in a hope you are well and having a nice evening way. Now i see in the X thread below more talk of releasing info under sealed order. This is baffling unless employee(s) there are truly in danger. How many more of these will there be now that everyone knows it works? fiveby(zero) 06:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per [4], this happens from time to time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not the first time the High Court has ordered an online platform..., as far as i am aware this is a first for WP, which they told us they wouldn't, but much more importantly told editors in India they would not. fiveby(zero) 07:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "this" I meant "WMF giving user-info per court-order." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, under Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and applicable 'US law. I do see those to Italy, Germany, and France in the article. Was not aware of those and they may be under US law, Terms of Use, or Privacy Policy. If not should have complained then. It's a shelter for editors at risk. fiveby(zero) 07:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think at least one part of it is the short deadline given (especially given Levivich's quote of the applicable policy). For something easily reversible like hiding the article, it's more practical to temporarily accept the legal orders and then arguing it's invalid after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applicable policy: m:Legal/Legal Policies § Applicable Law Determination:

If an applicable legal order requires changes to on-wiki content, we will only make direct changes via office action if there is a legal deadline and local process is unavailable or unable to respond in line with the legal requirement in time. In the event that we make a change via office action, we will provide an update to the local community after the change explaining the reason.

Levivich (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is one of two occasions since 2020 in which the WMF has accepted a non-DMCA-related content request (the other being some edits to fr:Dorcel)
I see several WMFOffice actions just on fr wiki: fr:Spécial:Contributions/WMFOffice, fr:Spécial:Journal/WMFOffice. Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ‘suspends access’ to ANI defamation case page, following Delhi HC order - The Hindu Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the WMF

[edit]

I think it would be beneficial to have a clear list of questions for the WMF to provide answers to. As an initial draft:

The Indian Courts are demanding that the WMF disclose the identity of three or four editors, and according to recent media reports to WMF is willing to do so.
  1. Are these reports accurate?
    If they are accurate:
    1. What types of PII would the WMF be disclosing?
    2. Have the editors involved been informed that the Indian Courts are seeking their PII, and that the WMF is willing to disclose it?
  2. What would be the consequences of not disclosing this PII, including:
    • What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
    • How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
The Indian Courts have demanded the WMF take down Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, which the WMF has now done
  1. What would have been the consequences of not taking down this page, including:
    • What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
    • How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
  2. Why did the WMF diverge from its standard policy of refusing to comply with these requests, such as in Turkey and France?

Are there any additional questions that the community wishes to get an answer to, or changes to these questions, before I start badgering the WMF to get answers to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like as a community that we take time to make careful and thoughtful considerations about this, which may involve not badgering the WMF for immediate details on a live court case where they are already handling apparently quite serious contempt of court allegations. CMD (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is very news-y and will take time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Without details we don’t have the information needed to make careful and thoughtful considerations. Once we have the details, we can consider them and decide if, as a community, we endorse or reject the WMF’s stance. In particular, I’m very concerned about the WMF being willing to disclose PII in cases like this, and I would like the community to have the chance to determine a position on that decision prior to the PII being disclosed. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Ongoing lawsuit, no comment for now" is likely to be the response if any for now, but we'll see. A known Wikipedian said this [5] regarding the ANI-case in early September. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process. Fortunately, the WMF lawyers are smart enough to not make a public statement about on ongoing case (apart, perhaps, from a few obvious platitudes). The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process.

I think the WMF would at least have an idea of what sanctions would be imposed, as well as which sanctions can be enforced on an entity based in America, but I’m not an expert and could easily be wrong on this.

The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me.

Given the WMF is willing to disclose those identities, I don’t see how this is the first step in doing so. Given past actions and focuses, I’m wondering if they are more concerned with protecting the WMF’s Indian revenue stream than editors identities or our core mission. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are unlikely to ever see a public statement from either side regarding this case except for something released by a public relations department with legal vetting. I doubt there is any reliable information about the WMF's intentions but we can see some action: the article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because the court ordered the page taken down - not because the WMF is trying to protect editor identities. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The financial cui bono angle is not convincing. Remsense ‥ 论 09:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given our track record over a great many years, that's an odd thing to wonder. But for the avoidance of doubt: no one at the WMF, no board member, no one at all as far as I know, has brought up the question of "protecting the WMF's Indian revenue stream" - because it isn't in any way a concern that is motivating anyone. I think you already had all the information you needed in order to come to that conclusion, before you started the speculation. Please don't do that, it's not the right way to AGF, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years, the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue, and one of the areas it is attempting to increase revenue from is India. Given this, and the unusual behavior we are seeing here, I think some "wondering" was appropriate at the time - the WMF needs to earn back trust in the area of revenue, it can't expect it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of that resonates with anyone who has been aware of the facts, so let me just repeat it - no one on staff or on the board has raised or mentioned or discussed in any way any question about revenue in the context of fighting for editor privacy and freedom of expression. It's literally not true, not even close to true. That's really about all there is to say about it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like one of those questions is more important than the others, and so it might make sense to just focus on that: "is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise?" –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It raises a good question of whether the WMF is making some sort of determination that some court systems are legitimate and others not... I would note that almost all of the North Korea and China related editing I do could now in theory be undone by defamation orders from the courts in those countries. The very idea that Taiwan isn't part of China is after all offensive to the "Chinese nation" same for the idea that Kim Jong-Un is a human rights abuser. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course true that in any situation, any rational and thoughtful defender of human rights will take into account various factors about the legitimacy of court systems and about the likely result of various courses of action. Again speaking only for myself, I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone who is thinking thoughtfully about how to fight would realize that doing anything in order to comply with courts in, per your example North Korea, would be pointless and hopeless. There would be no question of "we need to respect sub judice so that we can fight the real fight which is about user privacy and freedom of expression" because North Korean courts have zero chance of acting independently. If the WMF told me "we need to take down this page for now, so that we can preserve our ability to fight for the principles we believe in" in North Korea, I'd be totally unpersuaded. Nothing would change the outcome there, as it wouldn't be a real process.
If the WMF said "we need to take this page down because it offends the sensibilities of the 'Indian nation'" I'd be similarly unimpressed, as I'm sure you would be as well. So, again, don't worry - serious people, acting on top level advice from top people, are fighting the fight in a smart way for the principles that we believe in. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that WMF's legal team is advising they definitely not come in here and officially explain the action to us all. This is breaking news, and there's no particular reason Wikipedia itself needs to have this article live right now. No deadlines, we'll finish writing it after the case is settled. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jimbo Wales

[edit]

Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. Although I've been around Internet legal issues for a long time, it's important to note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. As you might expect, it's pretty limited as to what people are able to say at this point, and unwise to give too many details. However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has chnaged about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step. My understanding is that the WMF has consulted with fellow traveler human rights and freedom of expression groups who have supported that we should do everything we can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today. I hope these words are reassuring to those who may have had some concerns!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved here, as I created the article) Thanks, Jimbo. I support keeping our eyes on the prize. Valereee (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on a top-line level with the sentiment in the penultimate sentence regarding long term benefit vs short term benefit, my concern would be: is this likely to happen again? We saw with the squabble with the Supreme Court only a few weeks ago regading a victim's name of a crime, now this in the same jurisdiction. Are we setting ourselves up for failure here by showing that we will repeatedly acquiesce to demands—that conflict with our values and mission—from Indian courts that we wouldn't accept from any other jurisdiction outside the US? Daniel (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure wisdom I've heard from lawyers talking about analogous disputes has some purchase here: one has to play ball to some degree. If the WMF throws up their hands, says the entire court is out of order, and declares they will not participate in this legal farce—that is what will make them look vulnerable, because it's handing every bad faith actor an automatic pretext to get the website they hate to shoot themselves in the foot. See also my comment above. Remsense ‥ 论 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but the Indian courts are continually looking to expand their power, influence and jurisdiction. They are often seen as more powerful than the legislature and executive within that country; they share some alarmingly similar characteristics in their conduct and processes with the judiciaries of failed states and military juntas. I expect we will see this conduct continue over the coming months and years with more frequency until a line is drawn somewhere in the sand. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I think there is long-term reason for concern, certainly—I think one has to play ball to some degree, but determining when that degree has been exceeded is a big part of what you pay your shiny expensive counsel for. After that, who knows! — Remsense ‥ 论 10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jimbo. WMF Legal are in a hard place. Having 48,145,371 "clients" it's impossible for them to give confidential strategy briefings. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comforting in what you do not mention, the anonymity of editors in India is not at risk? If it's not a concern that is great, and i am sure you would have mentioned if it were. fiveby(zero) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, what? If India wants to block us like Turkey did, well, that's why people invented things like Tor, VPNs, etc. If India's threatening something else to WMF there, get out of India. India can't do anything to someone who's not there. (Unless, of course, the WMF is going to hand over data about editors who are there, in which case I hope no one would ever trust them regarding anything again.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better for Wikipedia to cease all operations in India than for it to hand over personal information of editors to the Indian courts. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sera, WMF pulled the article to keep the ability to appeal open. They aren't trying to make sure we aren't blocked in India. They're trying to make sure whatever decision is made can be appealed up the line. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely understand that. The answer to any such demand still must be "No". If that means they block us, they block us; that's all they can do if WMF pulls anything they may have there out of India. Unless, of course, they want to involve the community in the discussion about what's going on, and we agree that it's better to have it removed for some time so they can do what they're going to do. But otherwise, if having it up messes with their appeal, well—that sucks, but we should not be telling governments "Just make threats, and we'll remove whatever you don't like!". And now they even know how to make the threat—"Remove it right now or we won't let you appeal!". That cannot happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they believe that, like in Turkey, if they appeal it high enough, WMF will win, and that will be not only a win for Wikipedia but for free speech in India in general. And having the community discuss isn't really practical when a court order expired two days ago and the hearing is about to open; we could spend three months discussing this. I think temporary blanking is worth it, myself. We can always open an RfC here to get input. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what we should do, but I think we'll need some more information first. To start with (and Jimbo Wales, maybe you can answer this, or know who can), how temporary is "temporary"? If we're talking "Leave it down for a week or two until the appeal's filed", then I don't think people would object to that too much. If it's "We'll have an answer in five years, maybe, if we're lucky, and it might still be no"—I think that would be a very different conversation. Legal processes can be very lengthy indeed, so I think we need to have some time frame more specific than "temporary". Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's 'no' once there's no ongoing litigation, then yes, that's a very different conversation. That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court.
But yes, it would be good to clarify what happens when the case is decided in Delhi High Court, but before an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be complying with those laws. Now, if we need to as a genuinely brief measure to achieve some goal—maybe we say "Okay, this is worth a one-time compromise"; all rules can be ignored after all. But we certainly shouldn't be making a habit of knuckling under to things like that, and I'm afraid we're setting a very, very bad example for other such governments to follow. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You or I, as editors, shouldn't be complying. For WMF, as an intermediary trying to thread a legal needle, it's more nuanced. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a plus one to what Valereee is saying here and additionally that in my view the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has earned some trust that it understands the principles that we are all collectively fighting for and that it is acting competently to advance those principles under difficult circumstances that call for hard tradeoffs. Say what you will about other parts of the WMF, but our Legal team is genuinely top-tier and alined on principles, and I am 100% sure that they detest complying with this order. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - taking it down temporarily is acceptable, but if we're talking years then that becomes a different matter. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances of which Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey are vastly different from this time round. At the very least, there is still a legal pathway for WMF and the other parties to resolve the matter. If ultimately Wikipedia has being blocked in India totally, we can argue for the Office action to be lifted. For what reason will we want to the article to be not being written by then?
While English Wikipedia has its own rulebook, and one that is evolved largely within USA's set of laws, as an international encyclopedia, we have to be cognizant that the world is made up of different cultures, and accompanying them, different sets of customs, rules, regulations, and laws. What one may think as censorship or self-censorship for not covering an ongoing legal case, in other parts of the world, it may be more prudent to have the case covered only after the case has ended so that one does not prematurely receive an invitation for a coffee/tea session with the authorities.
In the meantime, we can collect the relevant sources for referencing for the article when the Office action is lifted. At the same time, in recognition of the ongoing archive.org issue, please archive the sources on other archival sites such as archive.today or ghostarchive.org. I just realised that some links I had tried to retrieve from archive.org aren't archived in the last two weeks or so. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to worry about what's prudent when deciding to write an article. If a court orders WMF to take it down, and WMF decides that's in the best interest of long-term goals, fine. But to not write it in the first place because I'm worried a judge might take offense? No. Valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about the judge, but instead fellow editors who are in India. Ever stop and think what adverse effects it may bring to the local community/groups there? – robertsky (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already grabbed a copy from an archive site, and saved it offline as well. If anyone has an issue with getting it from archive sites, I'm happy to email them my copy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
robertsky, that's an argument for not revealing identities, not an argument for not writing an article. Valereee (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Valereee said. They can't go after them if they don't know who they are, and it's clear they don't, or they wouldn't be doing all this to begin with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but instead fellow editors who are in India" thats the hostage fallacy. Its the same problem with paying terrorists for hostages... You incentive hostage taking, not disincentive it. Ironically what would endanger editors in India the most is setting up a system where the Indian government can use editors in India as leverage against editors outside of India. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jimbo Wales, thank you for that update regarding the page takedown; that is reassuring to hear.
However, of greater concern is the WMF's apparent willingness to share PII with the Indian Courts; in line with Novem Linguae's question above, is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise, and if so what types of PII will be disclosed? BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an entirely reasonable decision, and I'm thankful that Wikipedia is prepared to be blocked in India for the sake of freedom of expression if it ultimately comes to that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimbo Wales: An appeal on constitutional matters, although usually accepted, could perhaps take years for a final decision because of the seemingly endless pendency of cases in India's Supreme Court. But once the matter is no longer sub-judice in the Delhi HC, the page on ani vs wmf can be put right back up, afaik (correct me if I am wrong). If the appeal is on civil matter (i.e court finds wmf guilty of defamation), editors here won't be able to add the defamatory content (mouthpiece of BJP) back up until resolution in supreme court. Is this correct? — hako9 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You or someone on legal team of wmf will need to explain this to editors here because, they will keep editing cluelessly about the matter and admins won't know what they are supposed to do. I can reproduce the content on the deleted page right now, to a section in Freedom of expression in India. Will there be a staff action again? — hako9 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. My preference, speaking personally, is that people mainly not do that sort of thing just to stir the stew. I don't see the point. WP:POINT. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to step around on tip-toes nor for anyone to go wild WP:TROUTing anyone who talks about the case anywhere. We are all, or should be, reasonable people acting with kindness towards others. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimbo Wales: Would WMF comply with a future potential defamation/takedown order from the Indian government or its aggrieved citizens there for say Ayurveda or Narendra Modi/2002 Gujarat riots? — hako9 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request journalistic help with The Signpost

[edit]

The Signpost is Wikipedia editors' own newsletter. Like everything else with Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, and it invites volunteer contributors. I am writing to request assistance from anyone who would like to draft the story about this legal issue. I have some notes started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. Here, a brief objective summary of the events is needed. If anyone would like to contribute other journalism, such as a personal opinion piece on the situation, then please express your interest at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a bad idea. If covering the court case is what got us in trouble the first time, I doubt the court would look kindly on us doing it again, even if in a different format. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has Signpost cared about what's right or best for the project. SerialNumber54129 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment. Don't you find it disturbing? fiveby(zero) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am disturbed when free speech is under legal threat. That does not mean we should take a poor legal strategy, such as ignoring court orders while a case is ongoing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a WMF employee? Because if not the "us" there isn't under court order and has no legal strategy. We are not the WMF. Also note that you are currently ignoring such a court order if it does apply, you are literally discussing the court order right now on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a WMF employee, but I do view us as in this fight together given that they're fighting for our rights here. Doing things on Wikipedia that are likely to interfere with their strategy and piss off the court is, in my view, a bad idea if you want the WMF to win this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you commenting in a discussion which will almost certainly piss off the court? If you're taking the court seriously you aren't supposed to be having this conversation... You aren't supposed to even mention the case on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't refute anything I've said. An internal discussion vs something intentionally presented as a news report is very different and it's not unrealistic to think that the court would see it as such. And yes, I do think it would probably be better if we keep the discussion about the case itself to a minimum here, but since the discussion is already happening, it's not like my comments in particular are going to be the tipping point for the court being unhappy with us. Not interested in arguing about this with you. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long tradition of covering controversies which involve ourselves confidently, even handedly, and promplty, it is one of our best features and something that even our most ardent opponents will mention as a positive, its a peculiar badge of honor that anti-wikipedia people will refer to Criticism of Wikipedia or List of Wikipedia controversies for evidence of why Wikipedia sucks. I don't see a compelling reason to abandon that tradition, if you want to engage with me in that sense I would be very open to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The principle shouldn't be abandoned; just put on pause until we get a final result in this court case. Unlike previous cases, the judge here doesn't seem to be able or willing to distinguish between actions of Wikipedia editors and of the Foundation (that's how this whole thing became a problem in the first place). Given that, us editors doing stuff that the judge wouldn't like has the potential to cause problems for the Foundation's legal strategy.
After the court case is resolved, whatever the result, I expect that we will fully cover this, and that we will restore the page on this case (even if we lose the case and get blocked in India for it). However, doing so now would make it far more difficult for us to win the case. That's why we shouldn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that we aren't seen as separate wouldn't doing the same thing be the problematic one by that logic? And is an argument to do or not do something in order to seek advantage in a court case the foundation is involved in an WP:IAR argument or is there another policy or guideline basis for it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an IAR thing. In my opinion we should try to make the Foundation's job easier here, because doing so will benefit us in the long-run. (Of course, it wouldn't be IAR if they force us to shut this discussion down or removing coverage of the case elsewhere on the site... but I'd rather avoid things even getting to that point.) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be unfair to say that you think we should temporarily put aside NPOV in order to promote the Foundation for our own long term benefit? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is unfair to say. This isn't setting aside NPOV at all and certainly not promoting the Foundation. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting the Foundation's interests then? What is making their job easier if not promoting them or their interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly cannot understand the difference between "violating NPOV to promote the Foundation" and "not posting things that will harm their chances in ongoing litigation" then I do not think there is any point to discussing this further. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fabricate quotes, thats just not what I said... I said temporarily put aside in the context of IAR, which unless I misunderstand is the only policy or guideline on which your argument is based. Doing something to help a group's chances in a court case is a WP:NOT problem, that doesn't change when the party in question is the Wikimedia Foundation and not the The Coca-Cola Company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost isn't part of the encyclopedia. Content policies don't apply to it. Not that any content policy requires us to write about a topic anyways. This is a very silly thread. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing a third layer of complexity in the picture? I really can see why this is so maddening for judges to figure out... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as editors shouldn't worry about performance, I disagree with the notion we should adjust our behaviours to assist the WMF's active legal affairs, especially our own syntheses of what would help (with a clear distinction here in regards to settled policies, e.g. fair use). The Foundation has a legal team and contractors who are professionally poised to handle these situations. Once a hammer comes down, if it does at all, then those directions should be followed. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are all fine here, our speech isn't under legal threat. Bluerasberry can write elsewhere and we'll all be able to read about things elsewhere. It is annoying and shocking to see happen is all. I'd like to hear from those whose speech is under threat in the Signpost article. I thought that Wikipedia gave them the best protection they could to do so. From what i'm reading and how it appears that is not so strong a protection as I thought (but most importantly what they thought). Based on Jimbo's statement above and taking it as more reliable, it appears that this is not so great a concern in this case. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're going it now in a different format. This current discussion will offend the court if that will. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a general discussion about how the community should react to the issue between the WMF and the Indian courts, and publishing an article in something which identifies as a newspaper, covering apparently the same sorts of things as the recently redacted article covered. I know that it's ultimately the WMF's decision what flies and what doesn't fly, and no doubt they'll take the Signpost article down themselves if they deem it appropriate to do so... but personally I do agree with Elli that it would be prudent and WP:COMMONSENSE not to inflame this situation any further by publishing a Signpost article on it now, given the Office Action decision to redact the article itself. Once it all blows over, the Signpost can cover it at will.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Signpost used its own web server instead of piggybacking a free ride on WMF's servers, this wouldn't be an issue. And they'd be closer to an actual independent newspaper instead of being this website's newsletter. I agree they shouldn't pour fuel on the fire by posting about the case on the WMF's servers. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the one example at hand, the process seemed to be: ANI lawyers notice whatever > They tell judges > Judges get annoyed > Judges order WMF. It won't necessarily become a habit, and the previous article was in mainspace + linked on the ANI WP-article, and so more visible to the lawyers involved.
It will be hard to convince all Wikipedians not to discuss this possibly first-time-ever issue on-WP, but prudent people can always join the discussion on Wikipediocracy instead. I don't think writing in The Signpost is more not prudent than this thread. We as a community don't handle gag-orders well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us would rather have the discussion via messages left in gas station bathrooms than on Wikipediocracy. That aside, I think we handle gag orders well, in that we refuse to shut up, which is a good way of handling them. We just don't handle them the way those who would hold the gags wish we would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely an appropriate quote, but not in the way you think. If someone's trying to keep me from speaking either my opinion, or any true fact, and I have not voluntarily agreed to that situation (e.g., an NDA in exchange for access to sensitive data in employment), they are trying to steal my right to speak. And I won't take too kindly to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that the cadence of your comment reminded me of that quote, I'm not calling anyone in or mentioned in this discussion a thief. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world may be more germane than WP:COMMONSENSE. Nardog (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the editor-in-chief exists to post in situations like this.
Well: I don't think it's possible for a thing to fit fit more clearly in the Signpost than this (what could possibly matter more? the crossword?) At the same time, I would personally prefer to do so in a way that avoids hosing the entire project and everybody on it for no clear benefit. The obvious journalistic response to open direct censorship is somewhere between "NUTS!" and "Aux armes citoyens", which is altogether good and proper.
I would consider directly causing the death of the website we're hosted on something of an anathema to our ability to exercise journalistic integrity; I would consider e.g. having entire articles summarily oversighted with no appeal something of a pointless exercise in boneheadedness and organizational dysfunction for its own sake. Anything which results in these things happening, then, is no good. So what actions result in which outcomes? Well, I don't know. I don't think anybody really has a complete picture of what is going on, hence this vacuous if-by-whiskey post. All I can say for sure is that some emails are going to be sent. jp×g🗯️ 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound radical. But hear me out. Since signpost is a newspaper, you report 2 facts. 1) The article xyz was taken down. 2) Jimjams quote verbatim. That's it. No bylines. No explanation/analysis (not that most of the editors here are competent in legal analysis anyways). — hako9 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The court might consider it a house organ. They don't really understand the separation. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fr.wiki OAs

[edit]

In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs for two articles at fr.wiki. It is perhaps pertinent to note that in the period from 01-01-2015 to today — which is about a decade —, there have probably been only five OFFICE ACTIONs concerning content per this discussion: the article on the ANI litigation (2024), Lois Lee (2015), two fr.wiki articles (2024), and a Zh.wiki article (2018).

In any case, WMF issued a long statement to the fr.wiki community. I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. They also note that French courts are becoming increasingly sympathetic to the subjects of Wikipedia articles and probably hints that there could be more litigations (and similar OAs?) in the future. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case, we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in France – which explains the lack of inclusive writing/turns of phrase, for which we apologize. Bet the French loved that lol... Valereee (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the non-French members of the French-speaking Wikipedia community loved it even more... Like starting of a letter to the ewiki community with "we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in America" (although to be fair they do use the much more accurate "French-speaking Wikipedia community" further in) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially odd since the WMF does have several French-speaking employees, and has had French-speaking employees over the entire time period. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is a good subject for a The Signpost article, @JPxG. Office actions in history or something like that. I read some of a discussion linked in the long statemant [7], and the WMF lawyer there seems to be saying that it generally helps the legal department when the encyclopedic content is good quality, so they don't have to defend crap in court. I'll try to keep that in mind if I do more edits in the general area. And I think the deleted article was pretty ok from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important nitpick: As discussed above, one of the two OAs on frwiki also affected itwiki and dewiki, albeit much more minimally. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That happened in 2021. Weird to say the 2024 OA "affected" them. Nardog (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific database query used to start this thread looks only for logged actions (in the sense the community defines that term). It missed the 2021 action as a result of that, since the only logged actions it involved are oversights. I skimmed through WMFOffice's global contributions, and didn't find anything else of note. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&oldid=1252575129"