Asian News International sues Wikipedia for Defamation

[rnu]

cnbc-tv18: Wikipedia summoned by Delhi High Court over ANI defamation allegations

The Wikipedia page describes ANI as a "propaganda tool for the incumbent central government," which is accused of distributing materials from a network of fake news websites and misreporting events. ANI claims this description is defamatory and that Wikipedia has restricted edits to their page.

The court acknowledged ANI's concerns but noted that Wikipedia is entitled to its opinions. The validity of the claims will be examined in due course.

Bar and Bench: Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia in defamation suit by ANI

"They have closed my (ANI's) page for editing by anyone and can only be edited through their representatives," the counsel submitted.

Law Beat: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Wikipedia In ANI’s Defamation Suit Seeking 2 Crore In Damages

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, issued a notice to Wikipedia in response to a defamation suit filed by ANI, seeking damages amounting to 2 crore rupees. ANI sought the removal of defamatory content published by Wikipedia.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla issued a notice regarding ANI's request for interim relief and scheduled the next hearing for August 20.
ANI, represented by Advocate Sidhanth Kumar, initiated a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and its officials claiming that false and defamatory content was published with the intent to damage the news agency's reputation and goodwill.
Specific claims on Wikipedia's page included accusations of ANI's aggressive journalism model under new management and false allegations that Muslims were blamed for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women during the 2023 Manipur violence.
Advocate Sidhanth Kumar argued that the content was defamatory and claimed that Wikipedia, as a public utility, should not operate like a private entity. He also noted that Wikipedia had restricted ANI from editing its page, allowing only its own editors to make changes.
ANI also alleged that Wikimedia officials actively prevented edits to remove the disputed content, thereby losing their safe-harbor protection under section 79(1) of the Act and becoming liable for hosting and publishing defamatory content.
The court acknowledged that Wikipedia was entitled to hold opinions but would need to justify its actions in court, recognizing it as a defamation case.

Asian News International (T-H-L)

[C&B]

ANI takes WMF to ANI

[Hemiauchenia]

Wikipedia isn't making these claims per se, the sources that they are citing are. Seems strange to sue Wikipedia and not the sources actually making the claims.

That said, when looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331#RfC:_Asian_News_International_(ANI) (T-H-L), perhaps the article leans too negatively.

[Phantom]

ANI takes WMF to ANI

I can’t decide whether this is the funniest sentence of the week or Hemi's edit summary on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Nobody cares about your opinion, or your shitty report from a climate change denying conservative think tank.

diff

[Hemiauchenia]

I can’t decide whether this is the funniest sentence of the week or Hemi's edit summary on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Nobody cares about your opinion, or your shitty report from a climate change denying conservative think tank.

diff

Perhaps I was too harsh on that edit summary, but It was in response to a rather rude and snooty IP poster, and anything produced by the The Heritage Foundation (T-H-L) tends to be worthless partisan hackery (e.g. their promotion of electoral fraud claims regarding the 2020 election) that I thought it was pointless to have a discussion about, even if Heritage did claim it was "non-partisan" .

[Phantom]

Perhaps I was too harsh on that edit summary, but It was in response to a rather rude and snooty IP poster, and anything produced by the The Heritage Foundation (T-H-L) tends to be worthless partisan hackery (e.g. their promotion of electoral fraud claims regarding the 2020 election) that I thought it was pointless to have a discussion about, even if Heritage did claim it was "non-partisan" .

The fact that a dry comedic delivery wasn’t your intention makes it 10x funnier. I have that page bookmarked and I read it like a newspaper for the nutters that show up on it.

[C&B]

ANI takes WMF to ANI

I can’t decide whether this is the funniest sentence of the week or Hemi's edit summary on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Nobody cares about your opinion, or your shitty report from a climate change denying conservative think tank.

diff

To be fair, Hemiauchenia wields words as others do weapons... "Hermi-ouch!!!", and down goes the pusher of another shitty denialist report

[Kelly Martin]

Note that the damages sought, "2 crore rupees", is a measly $240,000, which is probably not too far off from what it will cost to defend the suit.

The organization behind this lawsuit is clearly stupid AF to sue an American organization and only ask for Indian levels of compensation. 20,000,000 INR seems like a lot of money to an Indian, but US$240,000 is frankly chump change to Wikimedia, which is sitting on a thousand times that in cash and liquid investments.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia isn't making these claims per se, the sources that they are citing are. Seems strange to sue Wikipedia and not the sources actually making the claims.

Under the traditional (English common law) theory of libel, a third party who republishes defamatory statements is fully liable for those statements. Republishers are not immunized merely because they factually report that the scurrilous claim they are publishing was originally said by someone else. Given this, suing "Wikipedia" (or at least the WIkimedia Foundation) makes perfect sense. Go after whoever has the deepest pockets.

[rnu]

The current protection was set as CTOP enforcement for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

[The Blue Newt]

Wikipedia isn't making these claims per se, the sources that they are citing are. Seems strange to sue Wikipedia and not the sources actually making the claims.

Under the traditional (English common law) theory of libel, a third party who republishes defamatory statements is fully liable for those statements. Republishers are not immunized merely because they factually report that the scurrilous claim they are publishing was originally said by someone else. Given this, suing "Wikipedia" (or at least the WIkimedia Foundation) makes perfect sense. Go after whoever has the deepest pockets.

Isn’t “fully liable” a bit of an exaggeration? As a practical matter, the potential cost to the publisher can vary a great deal based on whether they were seen as holding a mirror or using a bullhorn.

[RBF4]

Wikipedia, as a public utility, should not operate like a private entity

Amen to that. For far too long Wikipedia has been getting away with having it both ways, presenting itself as a public resource when that serves them well (access, influence, finance) while switching back to being a plain old private website when it suits (responsibility, accountability, transparency).

[rnu]

As expected, WMF does the traditional "we have nothing to do with Wikipedia" dance* it always performs when there are complaints about Wikipedia.

* Not to be confused with the "we are Wikipedia" dance the WMF performs when asking people for money.

The Hindu: Wikipedia parent responds to ANI defamation suit, says content by volunteer editors

“It has come to our attention via press reports that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has issued a summons to the Wikimedia Foundation regarding a defamation case filed by ANI against the Foundation,” the foundation said in a statement. “As a technology host, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not add, edit or determine content published on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s content is determined by its global community of volunteer editors (also known as the ‘Wikimedia Community’) who compile and share information on notable subjects.”
The foundation said it hadn’t yet received a summons in the case, and would determine next steps when it does. The case pits, potentially for the first time in such a significant way, Wikipedia’s volunteer-centric editorial norms against Indian regulations like the IT Rules, 2021, which require all loosely defined internet “intermediaries” to take action against content online if it is, among other things, defamatory, and a court or government order is issued against them.

[JarrBarr]

The article

Asian News International (T-H-L) sued Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation?) for defamation after some users inserted info suggesting that ANI (the journalists apparently don't realise the meaning on WP) is a propaganda arm of the Modi government. The judge overseeing the case requested details about three users behind it, which WMF apparently did not disclose after all, citing lack of physical presence in India among other things.

This might be one of the guys whose identity the Indian judiciary asked

The judge threatened to order a shutdown of Wikipedia in India:

I will impose contempt... It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia... You've made this argument before. If you don’t want to comply with Indian regulations, then don’t operate in India.

[C&B]

They should go to ANI.

[C&B]

Actually, why aren't they also suing the tons of official bodies who have also condemned them for misinfo, lies and stanning Modi? The ANI article 75% 'Controversy', which does seem to support the Wikipedians. Go on, sue the EU DisinfoLab! Why isn't the WMFs defence 'we're just reporting wot people have already been told'? Mind you, IANAL and all.

[Zoll]

The article

Asian News International (T-H-L) sued Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation?) for defamation after some users inserted info suggesting that ANI (the journalists apparently don't realise the meaning on WP) is a propaganda arm of the Modi government. The judge overseeing the case requested details about three users behind it, which WMF apparently did not disclose after all, citing lack of physical presence in India among other things.

This might be one of the guys whose identity the Indian judiciary asked

The judge threatened to order a shutdown of Wikipedia in India:

I will impose contempt... It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia... You've made this argument before. If you don’t want to comply with Indian regulations, then don’t operate in India.

Modi has been engaging in cronyism and authoritarian policies for years, yet we won't do anything about it.

[Hemiauchenia]

Can this be merged with the previous thread? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13626&p=357358&hili ... al#p357358

Asking for personal information on Wikipedia contributors seems a bit futile, as the WMF isn't likely going to have anything on them other than IP addresses (which could indicate that they may not even be in India in any case), and in Godric's case, they aren't even going to have that since their last edit was in 2020, so it's not really likely that even if the WMF wanted to it could provide enough information on these users for the courts satisfaction.

If this case actually results in the countrywide blocking of Wikipedia in India, then that just seems like it's going to result in a massive Streisand effect.

Moderator's note: Threads merged.

[Vigilant]

Can this be merged with the previous thread? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13626&p=357358&hili ... al#p357358

Asking for personal information on Wikipedia contributors seems a bit futile, as the WMF isn't likely going to have anything on them other than IP addresses (which could indicate that they may not even be in India in any case), and in Godric's case, they aren't even going to have that since their last edit was in 2020, so it's not really likely that even if the WMF wanted to it could provide enough information on these users for the courts satisfaction.

If this case actually results in the countrywide blocking of Wikipedia in India, then that just seems like it's going to result in a massive Streisand effect.

DO IT, INDIA!

DO IT!

[JarrBarr]

Can this be merged with the previous thread? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13626&p=357358&hili ... al#p357358

Asking for personal information on Wikipedia contributors seems a bit futile, as the WMF isn't likely going to have anything on them other than IP addresses (which could indicate that they may not even be in India in any case), and in Godric's case, they aren't even going to have that since their last edit was in 2020, so it's not really likely that even if the WMF wanted to it could provide enough information on these users for the courts satisfaction.

If this case actually results in the countrywide blocking of Wikipedia in India, then that just seems like it's going to result in a massive Streisand effect.

Oh, I wasn't aware of the thread - by all means do it.

[eppur si muove]

, and in Godric's case, they aren't even going to have that since their last edit was in 2020, so it's not really likely that even if the WMF wanted to it could provide enough information on these users for the courts satisfaction.

If they really wanted to, they could look at Godric's current Wiki account.

[Hemiauchenia]

, and in Godric's case, they aren't even going to have that since their last edit was in 2020, so it's not really likely that even if the WMF wanted to it could provide enough information on these users for the courts satisfaction.

If they really wanted to, they could look at Godric's current Wiki account.

There is reason to think that TrangaBellam (T-C-L) is indeed Godric, and they have edited the ANI article somewhat, but I'm not sure it would be enough in a court of law to definitely link the two accounts.

[rnu]

The Diplomat: Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?
Mostly about the ANI case, but also about general legal threats to Wikipedia in India.

[Kelly Martin]

Actually, why aren't they also suing the tons of official bodies who have also condemned them for misinfo, lies and stanning Modi? The ANI article 75% 'Controversy', which does seem to support the Wikipedians. Go on, sue the EU DisinfoLab! Why isn't the WMFs defence 'we're just reporting wot people have already been told'? Mind you, IANAL and all.

This is an "other bad stuff exists" argument and is not a legitimate legal defense. You can't get out of being held accountable for being a bad actor by pointing out all the other bad actors doing the same bad thing you're doing.

And "we just reported what other people said" is not a defense to defamation under the common law. Even in the US under the "actual malice" standard, the defendant has to show that they were not wholly negligent to avoid publisher liability for republishing a calumny, and the US law in this regard is far more friendly to publishers than the law in other countries. And, like it or not, the WMF is the publisher of Wikipedia under Indian law, and can be held liable for the content it publishes there. Section 230 doesn't apply outside the US.

[Hemiauchenia]

The outcomes I see likely:

ANI loses: Nothing changes, obviously
ANI wins: WMF will do nothing to change to article as it will otherwise set a terrible precedent (given that the allegations are all entirely sourced to reliable news publications). WMF gets some kind of fine that that is a trivial fraction of their warchest and meaningless to them. The court may decide to block Wikipedia for refusing to remove the material, in which case this is likely to result in widespread controversy similar to when Pakistan blocked Wikipedia, and there is a good chance they may back down.

[Phantom]

Asian News International (T-H-L)

Every "ANI falsely" in the article is such a middle finger


Talk:Asian News International (T-H-L)

The talk page is also hilarious…

[Vigilant]

Nothing changes, the shitfest continues.

[Phantom]

ANI has been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government,[7][8] distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites,[9][10][11] misreporting events on multiple occasions[7][12], and quoting sources that do not exist.[13]

The Wikipedia pot calls the kettle black…

[Midsize Jake]

If we assume that both ANI and the Indian judiciary system are just "arms" of the BJP at this point, is it possible they're not really so concerned about the en.wikipedia article content itself, but are more interested in getting the IP addresses of the people who reverted their edits? Having the ability to force ISPs to give up customer info would make the IP addresses much more useful in that regard — that is, if the users in question live in India, and the ISPs still have those records somewhere, and the users weren't all using VPNs or public-access connections at the time. That's probably too many "ifs," though.

Still, for all intents and purposes it's an authoritarian government, so they probably need something to spend the money on that they're saving by cutting or eliminating (or otherwise just not having) programs that might improve people's lives.

[Randy from Boise]

Law Beat: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Wikipedia In ANI’s Defamation Suit Seeking 2 Crore In Damages

The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, issued a notice to Wikipedia in response to a defamation suit filed by ANI, seeking damages amounting to 2 crore rupees.

Asian News International (T-H-L)

2 crore (20,000,000) rupees = $239,100

Remember crore for the next time you play Scrabble...

t

[rnu]

This is starting to get interesting:
Bar and Bench: Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page

The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned Wikipedia's stand to oppose the disclosure of information of its users who have allegedly made defamatory edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said Wikipedia would be putting its intermediary protection under the Information Technology (IT) Act at risk by taking such stand.
"You are the service provider, you run some risk of your protection, safe harbour being waived.... ," Justice Manmohan said.
The Court said there are serious allegations in the case, as it warned that it will record a finding that tests for ordering disclosure are met in the case.
"The system (of Wikipedia) cannot be a cloak to defame someone," it remarked.
It further observed that Wikipedia defending the users shows that such edits have been made "at behest" of the platform.
"Your vehemence is showing ... you are something more than an intermediary," Justice Manmohan said.
The Court also took strong objection against Wikipedia allowing a page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' to be published in relation to the present case.
It asked the platform to seek instructions in this regard and listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
"What we are finding is extremely disturbing that you think you are beyond the ambit of law. Look at the page. You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter," the Court remarked.

See also:
LawBeat: ‘You Cannot Put The Single Judge In Fear Or Threaten Him’: Delhi HC Warns Wikipedia In ANI’s Defamation Case
LiveLaw: Delhi High Court Takes Exception To Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI, Says Majesty Of Court Is Over And Above Anyone

Sounds like the court is not impressed by the WMF's traditional "we have nothing to do with Wikipedia" dance. The next hearing is set for 16 October.



Edit: added link to one more report

[Giraffe Stapler]

The court remarked, "You (Wikipedia) may be the world's most powerful entity. You may be backed by the world's most powerful power. But we live in a country that is governed by the rule of law”.

No comment.*
*That's no comment on Wikipedia being the world's most powerful entity, but also no comment on India being governed by the rule of law.

[Hemiauchenia]

To be honest, I question why an article about the ongoing legal case has been created. Aside from any potential legal implications, it seems like WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. It's already covered at the ANI article and at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) which seems like enough.

[rnu]

Did you know that admin Valeree (T-C-L) is a member of the hasten the day crowd? She's currently trying to get the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) article onto the Main Page. Which is the very article that might just give the already pissed off Delhi High Court the little nudge it needs to order Wikipedia to be shut down in India.
The Hindu: ANI vs Wikipedia defamation case: Delhi High Court orders Wikimedia to take down ANI page within 36 hours

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 16, 2024) ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to take down a dedicated Wikipedia page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia.
The court has directed Wikimedia to comply with the order within 36 hours.

That's either a smart hasten the day play or incredibly stupid. I'm going to AGF and support this action.

[rnu]

The court has indicated that it won't even listen to what the WMF has to say until the article is taken down:
Bar and Bench: Delhi High Court orders Wikipedia to take down page on ongoing case filed by ANI

A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took objection to the creation of the page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation'.
"First take down the Wiki page on this matter then we will hear," the Court said.

And the court really isn't impressed by the WMF's "we have nothing to do with Wikipedia" dance.

During the hearing today, the Court said that the safe harbour protection of Wikipedia is “gone” since it refused to divulge the details of the persons who made edits. Hence, the online encyclopedia will have to defend the suit, the Court remarked.
It also took objection to the creation of the page about the case itself.
"If someone writes something malicious about this bench, about this discussion, what will you do?" the Bench asked.
"There is a policy, it is self-regulated, it will be removed. As an intermediary, we act on court orders," Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal responded on behalf of Wikipedia.
"Simply say, you are not going to do anything about it," Justice Gedela said.
"We did not put up, it happens organically. We don’t interfere with certain matters," Sibal replied.
The Court then ordered that the page be taken down within 36 hours.

See also:
LiveLaw: 'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI

During the hearing today, Advocate Siddhant Kumar appearing for ANI told court that after the last hearing, observations of the division bench were opened up for discussion on the page.
Observing that the said act “compounds the contempt,” the bench said:
“The said description of the impugned order and of the single judge is prima facie contemptuous and amounts to interference in the court proceedings and that too by an entity whose editors are defendants in the suit.“

[Hemiauchenia]

Did you know that admin Valeree (T-C-L) is a member of the hasten the day crowd? She's currently trying to get the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) article onto the Main Page. Which is the very article that might just give the already pissed off Delhi High Court the little nudge it needs to order Wikipedia to be shut down in India.
The Hindu: ANI vs Wikipedia defamation case: Delhi High Court orders Wikimedia to take down ANI page within 36 hours

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (October 16, 2024) ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to take down a dedicated Wikipedia page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia.
The court has directed Wikimedia to comply with the order within 36 hours.

That's either a smart hasten the day play or incredibly stupid. I'm going to AGF and support this action.

Well, I opened an AfD discussion, and the result was "snow keep" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L), so it's not just Valeree who is to blame. The Wikipedia community has made their bed, and they'll have to lie in it. To be honest, the WMF was already on the judges shitlist for not revealing the identities of the relevant pages (an entirely justified decision), but their legal team must be very annoyed that the Wikipedia community has chosen to unnecessarily antagonize the judge by creating a superfluous page about the ongoing court case.

[rnu]

[...]
so it's not just Valeree who is to blame.
[...]

No, but she's the one who created the article in the first place, and she is the one who wants to put it on the Main Page.

[Hemiauchenia]

Somebody has also created a draft article about the case's judge: Draft:Navin Chawla (judge) (T-H-L)

[rnu]

I do not really see WMF taking down the article. While they have the theoretical powers (WP:OFFICEACTION), I expect the community to not react very kindly. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No it would not... Would be hilarious to see the WMF's role account and any staff accounts that attempted to interfere community banned though. Imagine the lawyer trying to explain that to the court... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So Wikipedians are now threatening the WMF. Nice.

[Black Kite]

A block on Wikipedia in India would certainly cut down the amount of vandalism, COI editing, blatant advertising, crap articles and spam. Not great for competent contributors, but Indian Government DNS filtering is apparently easy to circumvent.

[Vigilant]

I do not really see WMF taking down the article. While they have the theoretical powers (WP:OFFICEACTION), I expect the community to not react very kindly. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No it would not... Would be hilarious to see the WMF's role account and any staff accounts that attempted to interfere community banned though. Imagine the lawyer trying to explain that to the court... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So Wikipedians are now threatening the WMF. Nice.

Please proceed.

[Kelly Martin]

In practice it's unlikely that the Indian courts can seriously injure the WMF. The WMF has no meaningful economic connections to India, I doubt that India is a significant source of WMF donor cash, and (as noted above) country-level blocking is usually easy to evade. Furthermore, India/US relations are "strained" at best right now, which means that it's unlikely that India can obtain any satisfaction on this issue via diplomatic channels, either. At the same time, being blocked from India is a bad look for the WMF, what with their alleged mission of sharing knowledge with the world, especially the "less advantaged" parts of it.

However, it's a matter of time before a similar situation arises out of the European Union. While the EU has free speech guarantees in its fundamental human rights laws, the EU, in general, doesn't have the "fuck it all" attitude toward publisher liability that the US does, and I can see an EU court finding that the WMF is responsible, in at least some limited circumstances, for content published on Wikipedia. I can definitely see the WMF finding itself on the wrong end of a defamation or other publisher-liability suit out of a EU country which could end up directly impacting the WMF financially.

Hasten the day.

[Kelly Martin]

their legal team must be very annoyed that the Wikipedia community has chosen to unnecessarily antagonize the judge by creating a superfluous page about the ongoing court case.

Are you kidding? Their legal team is cheering them on, and might even have participated in the effort. Wikimedia hires its lawyers, like it hires everyone, not for competence, but instead for their commitment to the Movement.

[Hemiauchenia]

In practice it's unlikely that the Indian courts can seriously injure the WMF. The WMF has no meaningful economic connections to India, I doubt that India is a significant source of WMF donor cash, and (as noted above) country-level blocking is usually easy to evade. Furthermore, India/US relations are "strained" at best right now, which means that it's unlikely that India can obtain any satisfaction on this issue via diplomatic channels, either. At the same time, being blocked from India is a bad look for the WMF, what with their alleged mission of sharing knowledge with the world, especially the "less advantaged" parts of it.

However, it's a matter of time before a similar situation arises out of the European Union. While the EU has free speech guarantees in its fundamental human rights laws, the EU, in general, doesn't have the "fuck it all" attitude toward publisher liability that the US does, and I can see an EU court finding that the WMF is responsible, in at least some limited circumstances, for content published on Wikipedia. I can definitely see the WMF finding itself on the wrong end of a defamation or other publisher-liability suit out of a EU country which could end up directly impacting the WMF financially.

Hasten the day.

The WMF seems to have ignored the order from the Portugese supreme court regarding Caesar DePaço (T-H-L) to remove content from his article and to identify the relevant editors on both the Portugese and English Wikipedia and nothing much seems to have happened nearly a year later. Also the refusal to identify the sockmaster in the Gourcoff case hasn't resulted in anything more than fines for the WMF. So colour me skeptical of the idea that an EU court will find the WMF accountable in a way that it hadn't previously.

[rnu]

Is the WMF offering to rat out editors, just not publicly?

The court countered by asserting that such sources could be flawed and asked if the identity of the author would be disclosed. Advocate Sibal offered to reveal the author's name but through sealed covers.

What is Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?

The Supreme Court and occasionally lesser courts use the practice of requesting or accepting information from government organisations in sealed envelopes that are only accessible by judges.
If the Chief Justice or a court decides that the information should be kept confidential or under seal, no party will be permitted access to its contents.
It is often only employed in one of two circumstances: disclosing private or secret information or ongoing investigations that are part of the police diary.
The fundamental principle in both of these situations is identical: the court procedure must not endanger the inquiry or harm a party by disclosing facts.
The theory of sealed cover is not specifically defined by law. Still, the Supreme Court has the authority to apply it thanks to Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules.

[Beeblebrox]

It's not hard to understand the urge to kind of tweak the nose of people who are coming after WP content and ordering it removed. The whole "you have no power here" aspect of it is kind of amusing. It's silly and putting this article ont he main page is for sure intended to antagonize them, but part of me is all about it. India's court system is famously, badly, broken, and they aren't really holding any cards here either.

[Yngvadottir]

I do not really see WMF taking down the article. While they have the theoretical powers (WP:OFFICEACTION), I expect the community to not react very kindly. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No it would not... Would be hilarious to see the WMF's role account and any staff accounts that attempted to interfere community banned though. Imagine the lawyer trying to explain that to the court... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So Wikipedians are now threatening the WMF. Nice.

Please proceed.

Yeah Please ban WMF accounts. I need some joy in my life.

[Vigilant]

their legal team must be very annoyed that the Wikipedia community has chosen to unnecessarily antagonize the judge by creating a superfluous page about the ongoing court case.

Are you kidding? Their legal team is cheering them on, and might even have participated in the effort. Wikimedia hires its lawyers, like it hires everyone, not for competence, but instead for their commitment to the Movement.

Point me to a single qualified hire in the WMF legal team. Ever.

[Venefica]

A block on Wikipedia in India would certainly cut down the amount of vandalism, COI editing, blatant advertising, crap articles and spam.

But what about the autobiographies of every dentist and minor BJP functionary on the subcontinent? Who will be left to fight about which families are and are not Rajputs? Which editors will obsessively try to add material about "love jihad"?

As with most countries, articles about actual encyclopedic topics are probably mostly done or are of interest to editors globally, so there's no reason not to call the court's bluff. Give AFC a little breather, and enjoy the backlash, India!

[rnu]

The article is currently listed to run 19 October 00:00 UTC, which is 05:30 in New Delhi. That's well outside the 36-hour window the court gave the WMF to take the article down. I wonder what the court will have to say to that.