Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

Almost 400 signatures

Almost 400 signatures signed by established editors and multiple admins. Perhaps it's time for WMF to make a statement on the situation. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Somebody tag WMFOffice please Djano Chained (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

400+ now. At the present rate of growth, I estimate we'll have 500+ signatures in a little more than ten hours, but it'll probably slow a bit, so make it twelve or so. In the last ten hours, we've had an average of 5 new sigs/hr. In the first ten hours after the signature opened, that was closer to 18. Cremastra (u — c) 15:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll get ahead and ask this, would there be a moment where we have to make a subsequent page or two of these signatures, to prevent lagging? I'm happy regardless of the wide support. Carlinal (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the precedents (WP:NPPWMF and WP:SOPA), I don't think that's necessary yet. Cremastra (u — c) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're concerned about page load time, the page size is currently about 65,000 bytes. There's a lot of room for growth. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Now 800, which seems quite impressive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Make that 900... and close to 1000, as I speak. wow TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No Category:Times that 1100 Wikipedians supported something yet! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That didn't take long... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 Carlinal (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123: note it's now up for CfD and I'm not going to create one for 1,200. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF's policy

If it has already been in WMF's privacy policy before that "We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order", then I wonder if such open letters would make a difference and if it's worthy complaining at all. Besides, WMF isn't a Big Brother, collecting all possible user data, it can only collect the data provided by underlying user IP and user themselves who is presumably aware of WMF's privacy policy. So I think we shouldn't make big eyes out of fear. Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's something to ask them not to choose. Just because one can doesn't mean one shall. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh, never noticed that before ... and if I had, I would have stopped editing the day that excerpt was written. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you would withdraw from every online service that collects any data as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's impossible to do in this day and age with trackers almost literally everywhere, including on Wikipedia itself, so absolutely not. I have become a lot choosier in where my data gets revealed over the years; I had assumed there were some safeguards that the WMF implemented to protect its editors since that protects the integrity of this site, but that illusion of security has now disappeared. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All entities are required to comply with law. I read the sentence as "we will comply with court orders", which they can also appeal and battle before complying at the last moment as they have done with Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and the reason why we still have no idea whether emails have been disclosed to ANI. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that since every entity is supposed to do that. However, the lack of clarity is put into play when international law is considered, especially when the entities in a lawsuit are from different countries. In such cases, there are multiple ways to respond to such lawsuits to resolve the lawsuit; the response in this specific case is unfortunate since even though WMF apparently has in writing they could do this, they didn't have to do this since there were other options which may have satisfied the lawsuit that did not involve providing user information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal ≢ ethical. I wish the WMF would make the right ethical decision, whatever legal advice they have been given. Lawyers only advise; the WMF decides. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually did read that fine print, but I always took it to mean that such information might be turned over to authorities when there is actual wrongdoing, such as child abuse. Not that it would be done in order to (perhaps) protect the WMF's rear end. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous speech is not guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. Free speech is only for Indians. Indian law, especially the old IPC and the new BNS, criminalises defamation as a criminal offence as well as civil tort. So the options for Wikimedia are very limited and we need to be very cautious to maintain safe harbour while avoiding criminal liability. On the other hand ANI has every right to pursue civil damages. To do that ANI needs a defendant and that’s where the three targeted editors come in. If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia. I see a lot of negative comments against Indian judges on this page. Based on my personal experiences I can say that the Indian judiciary, especially the High Court, has a good understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. For example Indians all over the world can pay just 6 cents to download the entire digitised court file in the ANI case from the Delhi high court's website. I doubt if that’s the case in the US. Has anyone here tried to do it I wonder ? Maimontradi (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

IIRC court files in the US are free unless a judge orders something to be held sealed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The San Diego Superior Court does not send out court files electronically or by fax. In addition, persons are not allowed to use cameras (including phones with cameras) to take pictures of the contents of a file. Maimontradi (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the normal court, not the appeals court, the rough but still more local equivalent of the Delhi High court: https://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

At the Federal level in the US, PACER is pretty impressive and for reasonably popular cases, the Free Law Project's RECAP has free access to Pacer docs. I wish there was something similar / consistent across the states. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court isn't only a court of appeal, its primarily a court of original jurisdiction. I read that PACER is only available to authorised people (? lawyers) and is very expensive (like a paywall), while the Delhi High Court e-inspection is open to all Indians anywhere in the world to access at a token court fee of just 6 cents. So back to my original question, has any Indian Wikipedia editor accessed the official court file so that this open letter can be based on what the litigants have actually filed and not assumptions from the secondary reporting or what the Foundation condescends to share to the minions ? Maimontradi (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Local appeals courts also hear quite a bit of original jurisdiction cases.
2. The PACER system only charges fees after one requests 300 pages within 3 months.
3. The aforementioned RECAP system is free, albeit an unofficial effort that has slightly less documents.
4. PACER and RECAP are only for cases that involve federal law. I'm not sure if Indian high courts are under territorial or federal jurisdiction.
Everything said in the secondary sources can and have been backed up by looking at the original case files. For example, the latest wave of anger directly quotes the court order. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Actual court order is quite different to what is reported in your link. let fresh summons be issued to Respondents No.2 to 4 through all permissible modes, including Dasti, and emails which are to be supplied by Defendant No.1.. This means that WMF will provide email IDs to the Court Registry who will serve summons on the the 3 users. Since Court has specified Dasti (hand delivery) too, WMF has to provide their physical addresses also. On Court website it is visible that exactly 5 days after that order the ANI has paid the summons service fees vide Diary No : 5326539/2024. This probably means that ANI also knows the names and IDs of the 3 users by now, as provided by WMF.Maimontradi (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How is that different to what we've taken from it? The entire open letter was exactly against the disclosure of the identities of the users. People hoped that the WMF would deliver the summons themselves instead of disclosing names or any other "subscriber details". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Subscriber details will still be submitted to the court after issuing summons. (b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly; that's what people are angry about! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. " - We can clearly see how it is using its " tech savvy"-ness to control the internet on behalf of the Indian state.[1] - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia" — then so be it. It is a blatant pressuring of editors who just use reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, people in sub section above this one are using confetti cause the signature reached certain numbers, Lol. WMF can still stand by and help editors in court cases, especially when the court examines whether their actions caused offence. Its a court case so should get decided in the court is what I believe and is what many on wikipedia are lacking in understanding. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 07:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an external court case. Many signatories want the foundation to cease operations in India instead of handing over the identities of editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard Incident – Hindu News

Given this ani [[2]] the idea that users name will be published in India (given the threats) is highly troublaing. We have a duty of care. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the Wikipedia users name will be published in the ANI suit. Under Indian criminal law neither "truth" nor "verifiability" are absolute defences to the offence of defamation (and its civil consequences, ie. damages). WMF has recorded a compromise in court that they will serve the 3 editors in question by email, what is not appreciated is under Delhi High Court's procedural rules in such matters where the noticee has not appeared before the court, the email service of notice has to be only sent from the email ID of the Court registry and not from the email ID of Wikimedia or Wikimedia lawyers. So Foundation will have to disclose the email IDs to the Court registry. This procedure cannot be termed as publication Maimontradi (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The threat is possed by the threats to publish users names elsewhere for the purposes of reprisal. One garnered from the court records. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

WIRED – India's Government Wants Control of the Internet

https://www.wired.com/story/indias-government-wants-total-control-of-the-internet/ - This lawsuit is India's far right government's attempt at controlling the internet. By conceding to India's demands, WMF has forever damaged its mission. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I like WIRED, but there's nothing that hasn't been already said about the Indian government (and journalism) at this point. Besides, I argue that the WMF hasn't conceded. Not yet. Carlinal (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The terms of the consent order has following terms (e) Respondent No. I shall be at liberty to approach the Ld. Single Judge for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover, if required, which shall be considered in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are left open. C. It is made clear that service of summons in accordance with this order shall constitute sufficient service upon Respondent Nos. 2-4 (impleaded as Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in CS(OS) No. 524/2024) and the Appellant's compliance is limited to effecting service as provided under this order and will thereby fasten no liability on the Appellant for Respondent Nos. 2-4's actions or inactions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent Nos. 2-4 will be at liberty to raise all defences available to them in accordance with the law in CS(OS) No. 524/2024. If WMF fails to comply now that the ANI has deposited the process fees, the only appeal route left for WMF is to the Supreme Court of India, which traditionally has been extremely reluctant to interfere with consent orders. There can be no further confirmation that either WMF has thrown the 3 editors under the bus, or has failed to give their correct details.Maimontradi (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As the Maimomtradi said before, WMF has agreed to hand over the details to court within 7 days of issuing summons. Perhaps they have already submitted the details to the court or they will do it by 16 December. In any case, it is beyond certain that WMF will throw editors under the bus to save itself and not doing so would mean going against whatever they have agreed to in the court. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any updates on that? What is going on at the moment? BilboBeggins (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Others have challenged the 2021 IT Rules and filed petitions against the laws—including online publications The Wire, The News Minute, and The Quint, as well as musician T. M. Krishna."

This is from the article itself, so its (The WIRE) a party and interested party for that matter on this issue. Any internet company that carries business in, from and via India has to appoint local rep. who can be contacted and communicated not only by the government but by the common people for their grievances. So I am all in with GOI on this particular matter. It is similar to an EU law.

Aside from that, coming to ANI vs WMF case, it seems people here are doing the job of judiciary and the executive when they have exactly zero percent real power and authority to do so. In the SignPost article over this case it was mentioned under the heading "how Indians view Indian courts" iirc, as Indian courts take time and processes can last longer than 2-3 years, etc. etc. And they forgot to mention the Indian views- which is with respect and last resort for justice. Ofc all governments around the world abuse their powers for political gains and influences. This is so much true and evident with rise in right wing sentiments around western world than ever before.

I being an Indian citizen believe in the court to do just the justice and I am of an opinion that whatever Wikipedia volunteers choose to do it shall carry no bearing to the courts job. As per what I read- WMF has no office in India- itself seems little odd to me and would require legal scrutiny whether it should change that. Let me again repeat, online media that want protection as an intermediary need to have local rep. in India. If not WMF will be liable for actions even if its caused by a vandal. That is what I don't wish to see. Wiki for me as a High schooler was nice place to look up for info and articles for projects. Today now grown up, I believe it has drifted a lot from that, I hope Jimbo reads this. Pretty bad place to write it for Jimbo to see, but hope is everything I have, from wiki volunteers, from the court, from Jimbo and from WMF. Thanks! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I choose not to reply to the rest of your points, but if you want Jimbo (who has little formal power over Wikipedia now) to read this then you can post at User talk:Jimbo Wales or ping him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

OP appears confused between WIRED.COM and TheWire. Not uncommon with these 2 cent Tweeter types. Directing him to Jimbo was a masterstroke.DrMees (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You were correct, I striked my wrong parts, but my sentiments about wikipedia volunteers and WMF remain the same. Also, reading the article I dont take WIRED article as fair assessment of the law and what's happening in Indian media landscape either. Either you can be an intermediary and avoid prosecution subject to new laws or the publishers and face prosecution when your publication gets used by wrong people. When I break traffic rules I should get a challan and when a big company's platform carries any illegal/ damaging material they should be let go due to legal lingo, NO. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not active editor here so idk if I should be that visible `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 05:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories for Times that 1,000+ Wikipedians supported something

New section so this doesn't get lost in § Almost 400 signatures. Heads up that my creation of the 1,100 category is up for discussion, along with the 1,200 category, so I suggest we all refrain from creating more of these unless it starts approaching 2,000 (!). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Petition

Normally petitions are for the benefit of elected officials, in deciding what policies to support. Because in a "democratic" system, petitions matter, since "the people" have the vote, next election cycle, and can vote elected officials out of office. Otherwise, what is a petition other than bleating sheep.

Is this case something elected officials at WMF have a choice over? It seems like an external legal matter. Do the elected board members have access to all the information about the case? I think the petition should hold accountable elected board members, if that is appropriate. But if they are not the responsible parties, I don't see the point of a petition, except as a pressure escape valve. -- GreenC 16:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no petition being signed here, rather it's an Open Letter to WMF (also to general people at large). Open letters are like expression of views whereas petitions are more structured way for demanding some actions to be taken or directions to be issued and are directed to a certain body, which then can accept or reject such a petition. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh duh. It does say, "Open Letter". I saw somewhere it was called a petition (now can't remember). The letter does say "Nevertheless, we call upon the Foundation.." which is a demand for a particular action in regards to this case, I don't know how else to read it in full context. If it were a true open letter, it would rather say something like, "We the undersigned support a position .. ", but not going so far as "calling upon" the Foundation to take an action. -- GreenC 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this has been that volunteer community is overstepping at many places (should I say presuming too many future happenings). I have mixed feelings about this type of behavior at one hand we want to support those individuals who are at the receiving end of this and on the other hand maintain common sense and logic to prevail over personal interests and opinions that few other editors are making (pushing a pov of "Modi's India", bad judiciary, etc. etc.). So since platform welcomes community edits unfiltered I could only hope that more people learn than teach. Just a quick note, India despite being democratic country does not have petition procedures for any matters except for mercy petition for capital punishment, which in itself is last option those offenders have. So not all democratic societies have petitions. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A current watchlist notice says "There is a petition to the WMF", linked here. Certes (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I cant find the link `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Petition to WMF. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, petition message leads to open letter -_- `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise of the original post here. Certainly petitions exist or have existed in many types of society, including undemocratic ones. And who, if not the WMF, is making the decisions in this case? I would hope that they are not blindly following legal advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The gross total of edits

The gross total of edits these editors have should be calculated somewhere. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

About 50.9 million. —Cryptic 23:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice. I'm an old cobol programmer, so I've written my share of sql statements in my career. Are the tables that you extract this data from populated by the Wikpedia software directly, like when you save your edits? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes; documentation here. This is a bit off-topic for this page; I'd be happy to follow up on my user talk or at WP:RAQ. —Cryptic 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Any updates on the case?

Or are we currently waiting for the first week of December, which is I believe what was previously mentioned for when the next decision or announcement is meant to happen, correct? Silverseren^C 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The update is that ANI now know who the 3 wp admins are and is waiting for them to appear on the next date, which seems unlikely seeing as how none of them are situated in India. ANI would then claim that they, as privileged admins/stewards/checkusers/oversighters of ENWP were acting as agents/employees of the WMF which bears vicarious liability for their actions. The crux of ANI's case is that they are targeting Admins and not ordinary editors. DrMees (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You've been asked before in other threads to not make unsubstantiated claims like these. There is already a lot of misinformation spreading about this case, so we really need to stick to the facts and not extrapolate. Do you have any source for any of what you're saying here? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. To answer you precisely. I have sources. The sources are unimpeacheable. It is not misinformation to say that ANI is now targeting wikipedia admins after WMF stated in court that Respondents 2 through 4 have no connection with WMF. To reiterate, an ordinary esditor of Wikipedia, (defined as an editor who is not covered under WMF's Legal Assistance program of 2012) has nothing to worry about from Indian courts/laws as their contributions are subject to modification and moderation by WMF's administrators and oversighters, and ultimately by an "Office Action" by WMF, to prevent Wikipedia being perceived as an "aggegator of defamation". DrMees (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sources. Show your work, then. The Hindustan Times source you link supports exactly none of what you just said. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This talk page betrays a complete lack of understanding of the issues involved in the court proceedings

Scenario : An entity based in India perceives a Wikipedia article about them is "defamatory". They approach WMF legal and are asked to interact with the "community". The entity hereafter also relies on the Indian Supreme Court observations of October 2022 that "You can edit Wikipedia yourself" if you feel defamed and begins editing out the perceived defamatory bits. Along comes a very senior Wikipedia steward/oversighter and reverts their edits without any explanation. The entity's user/IP is also blocked to prevent further 'vandalism'. The aggrieved entity is then left with no legal remedy except to sue WMF (the primary respondent) and some of the other contributors (innocents misguided by Wikipedia's meaningless "policies" which have no legislative backing in any jurisdiction) for damages. IMHO, The fault is entirely WMF's for not putting in place the grievance redressal procedures mandated under India's laws so that aggrieved Indian entities can get their grievances redressed .. without having to interact with the verysame community and to adhesively accept WMF terms of use as a condition to do so. Similar news aggegators like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have all complied and they have separate grievance structures exclusively for Indian persons. Indian courts are now increasingly admonishing WMF to either comply with Indian laws or not publish (be read) in India. I fail to see why an innocent wikipedia UNPAID contributor who adds a well sourced sentence or two to a Wikipedia article/page wgould be legally equated (by being sued) to the WMF which collects millions in donations from such unregulated websites. DrMees (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has exhaustive avenues to challenge content. They deleted content repeatedly from an IP without comment until they got banned. Never even attempted to use a talk page or even made an edit summary for why they deleted the content. The claim that they had no other remedies but to launch legal action against the WMF shows complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

3 points. (1) Why should a hypothetical person aggrieved by defamatory (as they perceive it) content have to understand how Wikipedia works ? (2) Why should such a hypothetical person have to first agree to abide by Wikipedia's (legally meaningless) policies like WP:V, WP:NLT etc to complain or avail "community" procedures or else be blocked ? (3) Why does WMF not have an independent procedure like DMCA for removing defamatory content as it does for copyrighted content ? DrMees (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

(1) Because the lawsuit would likely have been averted if they had taken ten minutes to write out something on the talk page to the effect of "I represent ANI, we have problems with X, Y, and Z." (2) WP:NLT exists because issuing legal threats - or really any sort of threat - has the effect of immediately shutting down any sort of reasoned discussion of the content on the merits. (3) WP:Contact us includes a link to the info-en queue for things like this if it requires discretion, and talk page posts similar to what I detailed in 1 work for matters that are not sensitive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Since "defamation" and its variants are taboo for discussion on ENWP, attempts to engage are quickly shot down using WP:NLT with the aggrieved persons getting blocked and having TPA revoked. The info-en queue doe not work at all for such kind of matters with legal implications. DrMees (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, discussing whether the content of an article is defamatory is fair game. Shutting down any such discussion by threatening to sue for defamation unless demands are met is a completely different ballgame and is counter-productive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, once having informed the publisher (WMF) at their designated address/agent for service, the complainant does not have to accept the suggestion of WMF to interact with the community of mostly anonymous editors, and can proceed directly to court. It would benefit all sides to have an independent body within WMF to decide these contentious issues. Otherwise we will keep seeing such types of lawsuits in India with its new laws. ANI's is not the first such one. DrMees (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Except the WMF doesn't publish the content. The community does. (The WMF is younger than Wikipedia.) It's like suing HarperCollins for an off-the-cuff comment one of its authors said in an unrelated forum. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because one party views it as defamatory does not mean that it is, in fact, defamatory. When it's supported by multiple reliable sources, it's unfavorable towards them but also well supported. Also, the "legally meaningless" policies aren't legal, it's a something that affects editing on Wikipedia and that's it. Sure, they can be ignored, and there are consequences here (and here only) for making that decision. Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are both skirting the issues I have highlighted. eg. "Why ?" must somebody from India who somebody else in, say, Canada, has written about have to discuss this matter with the writers of the article ? Every reputed news publisher has an independent oversight mechanism, you can call it a self regulatory mechanism, so that aggrieved persons do not have to interact with the authors directly. The DMCA mechanism is one such efficient mechanism, which balances the rights of both parties to the dispute and leaves all legal routes open. Since 2011 the Govt of India has laid down a 3 level process for aggrieved Indian persons, the first 1 would be in-house within WMF (not Wikipedia) the 2nd level would be a formal internal arbitration style process before a retired judge along with 4 or 5 qualified and experienced media persons from the organisation or its self regulatory body - sample decision #1, sample decision #2 , and the 3rd level is before the very senior rank Govt officer who actually regulates the internet transmission of all publications in India, assisted with officers from other departments like internal security, information technology, womens rights etc.. WMF, unlike Google, Twitter (X) and Meta who have all complied, has not. Hundreds of Indian websites are compliant (including some very anti-Govt ones) so the only question is "WHY" the WMF has opted not do so so while building up its Indic language communities in India through proxies like CIS (Centre for Internet and Society) and holding conferences in India (2 in Hyderabad this year past) and getting substantial donations from Indian users - and instead chosen to throw its editor identities to the Indian court jurisdiction where they can be targeted by thugs from Hindu News. NB: Unlike the USA, anonymous speech is not privileged speech in India, as the publisher runs the risk and consequences. DrMees (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometime, way back, I had a copyright issue with WMF, it was ultimately resolved in my favour via DMCA after local communities went into their "Wikipedia is not Censored" shtick. Here is what WMF's then General Counsel wrote to me initially on the topic of "grievance officer" under Indian laws However, as Mr. Beaudette mentioned in his response, the Wikimedia Foundation is a U.S.-based non-profit organization, which abides by U.S. law. As such, we do not have a "grievance officer" per se, as one is not required under U.S. law. That said, those with complaints against the Wikimedia Foundation may contact us either by email at legal@wikimedia.org or by proper legal service to our designated agent at: Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017. It is worth noting, however, that the Wikimedia Foundation does not create, edit, or curate content on Wikipedia. That is the work of a global community of volunteer users. If you or any other individual or organization has a concern about content appearing on Wikipedia (regardless of the language), it is far more effective to address that concern with the user community directly. You can address the community in a number of ways, depending on the language (each language Wikipedia has its own community and procedures, meaning that the English Wikipedia community is separate from the Hindi Wikipedia community). One way to have your concerns addressed is to start a discussion on the talk page of the particular article that contains content that you have concerns about. Another is to email info@wikimedia.org, where you will reach experienced Wikipedia users who volunteer their time to answer the public's emails and help out with content concerns. Please note that the info@wikimedia.org is generally most effective in English, but they will try to help the best they can in other languages. Another way to have your concerns addressed is to bring them up on relevant noticeboards. However, the noticeboard that will be most relevant for a particular concern will vary depending on the nature of the concern and which language Wikipedia your concern relates to. It is also worth noting that lodging a complaint about content through any of these venues does not necessarily mean that the complained-of content will be altered or removed. Content on Wikipedia is governed by standards, such as verifiability <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability> and neutral point of view <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>, created and enforced by the Wikipedia user community. Content that meet the standards of Wikipedia will generally be kept on Wikipedia. However, if you believe that you have found content that does not meet a particular Wikipedia standard, we encourage you to voice those concerns through one of the methods mentioned above.. Reading this professionally, I decoded that it's better not to waste time on timesink community talk pages as the WMF suggested and instead use the legally prescribed methods directly with WMF to get my result over the community howling. DrMees (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

wth WMF is shying away from legal responsibilities for wiki? the thing that made WMF what it is today :( I guess the case is going to tell how wiki will work in IN in future `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you tell us your version of this copyright issue story, and hide mention of any details that would allow someone to look up what you are referring to themselves, strongly suggests that your version of events is not credible and wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. If you want someone to seriously consider your lengthy post then you should stop hiding the supposed copyright issue in question and actually link to it.

As far as your "why?" question asking why the aggrieved must "have to discuss this matter with the writers of the article ?", I would respond that they do not have to discuss with the writer directly. They do have to discuss with whoever in the community wants the content to be retained, but not the writer specifically. The reason they must discuss with the community is because the community is responsible for the editorial oversight of Wikipedia. Sites like Twitter and Meta moderate the content of their users, and are therefore responsible for the moderation of the content on their sites. The WMF does not moderate the content on Wikipedia. You state that:

"Every reputed news publisher has an independent oversight mechanism"

But the WMF is not a publisher, it is a platform provider. Meanwhile, Meta and X are in a legal gray zone and can be considered publishers due to their active content moderation policies and substantial role in shaping content visibility. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Photos of Japan has a point in light of this claim you make. A claim which happens to run afoul of WP:Biographies of living persons, which exists to kerb defamation via Wikipedia and so is very rigourously enforced on discovery. Let's also circle back to the email contents you posted, which you claim are from WMF Legal and which explicitly states that the WMF does not publish the content; the individual editors that commit each edit (specifically) and the community (in general) do. Your argument is that WMF is the publisher when even their lawyers are telling you that individual editors are responsible for their own edits.

Now, part of the reason that people are up in arms about this lawsuit is because it looks, from the outside, like lawfare in the form of a strategic lawsuit against public participation - a lawsuit designed specifically to bankrupt targets to get them to shut the fuck up about the suing entity. There is a genuine risk that if ANI succeeds, other entities, in India or otherwise, will follow suit, hollowing out Wikipedia's editor corps, particularly in contentious topic areas such as India itself or in one of the other intractible ethnopolitical hellholes. This has a legitimate risk of damaging Wikipedia as a whole by making it harder to cover these topics without risking a legally-frivolous lawsuit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF is to be blamed here for operating in an authoritarian country with draconian and hostage taking laws ("keeping three grievance officers in the country"). From now WMF should close down their operations in countries that do not respect freedom of speech and have no anti-SLAPP laws. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Also noting here that DrMees displays a very high levels of understanding of Indian legal matters similar to the socks belonging to WP:LTA/IAC. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour really doesn't match at this point, Ratnahastin. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-and-anis-defamation-suit/article68924317.ece

Published 35 minutes ago. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The contributor Mukunth.V is "the Deputy Science Editor of The Hindu." . I also (personally) know him to be the officiating Grievance Officer under the impugned IT rules for the Hindu group of publications (something which they don't publicly disclose). He has summed up ANI's case well (if incompletely) in 2 paras According to ANI, the defendants — Wikimedia and the Wikipedia ‘administrators’ — “have collectively tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff by publishing false, misleading and defamatory content on the ANI page, and discredit the plaintiffs impeccable professional standing.” When editors associated with ANI attempted to edit the allegedly defamatory statements, other (independent) editors reversed or modified them. ANI has contended that Wikimedia, through the ‘administrators’, has “actively participated in removing any edits that sought to reverse the false and misleading content framed against the Plaintiffs”.Wikipedia later changed the page’s status to ‘extended confirmed protection’, which prevented ANI-associated editors from further changing those statements. ANI has alleged that this implies Wikimedia violated the obligations of an intermediary under the safe-harbour provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.Thus, ANI concluded, Wikimedia and the administrators should be held liable for hosting and publishing defamatory contents.. Of course there are many mistakes in here. The concerned admins are not independent of WMF, The WMF did not change the page status, etc. However, the moot point is that ANI's agents did not open accounts to carry out their edits so even the lowest semi-protection (4D+10e) would have stopped them in their tracks. The Hindu group have a dog in this fight as they (through DIGIPUB) have challenged the IT Rules before the Bombay High Court and obtained a limited stay order on its application However, the Government has ignored the stay and acts as though it does not exist as similar proceedings are also ongoing in the Supreme Court.DrMees (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)