this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
241 points (88.5% liked)

Technology

59665 readers
3049 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 119 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

What the actual fuck

Edit:

With Jimmy Wales’ assent, the WMF removed and locked the page. As unhappy as Wikipedians were about it, blocking content can be temporary. If the Foundation reveals these editors’ identities, this is a decision it can never reverse.

Guess I'll be watching this one closely.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 day ago

I would never have become aware that that article existed if not for everyone talking about it being censored. The Streisand effect seems to still be alive.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 69 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

In a recent court proceeding, WMF’s legal team offered a supposed middle path, proposing it take the unusual step of serving summons to the editors itself, thereby revealing their identities only to the court, not the wider public. Wikipedians, however, do not see this as a compromise—it’s capitulation. Last week, Wikipedia editors published an open letter to the Foundation, urging it to protect its volunteers’ privacy regardless of the outcome. It reads in part

only to the court, not the wider public

Would this really be that much better? Once the information is out, it's impossible to hide again

And the consequences would not end with this case. Compliance may discourage contributions from editors worldwide, not just those under authoritarian rule. WMF submission could encourage other governments to make similar demands, putting Wikipedia in an untenable position and reducing its influence where free knowledge is needed most

This bit also seemed important

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 day ago

Wikipedia has plenty of experience being blocked in the world’s largest country, which was the case until India’s population surpassed China’s in April 2023. If India takes the most drastic step, the Foundation can stand proud in its resolve.

Sounds easy enough to me.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jimbo's justification is that if they don't do this to the page, they'll completely lose their chance of arguing in court, and 1. they can always restore it if the court orders something they decide not to do 2. the contents of the article are already archived all over the internet

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

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.

Seems reasonable

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't it pretty normal for judges to prohibit plaintiffs and defendants from talking about active court cases outside of the court room? I doubt Asian News International is allowed to publish articles about the case, either.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Gag orders in the US are issued very rarely.