[ToxicMegacolon]

> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for:

1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law. 2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong 3. Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law.

Makes sense

[random_ind_dude]

This[0] is the Wikipedia article that ANI has beef with. The claims of propaganda are all supported by ample secondary sources from Indian news organizations like Caravan Magazine and the Ken.

ANI wants Wikipedia to provide the names of the editors that added the details to the article. Once Wikipedia reveals those names, ANI will presumably sue them for defamation and force them to remove their contributions. While the edit history will remain, few are likely to read it.

Suing the editors and forcing them to retract their edits on Wikipedia will have a chilling effect on anyone Indian that tries to point out what ANI and similar organizations are doing. But if Wikipedia blocks India and the issue blows up in the media, ANI will be forced to back off and the article will stay up. Wikipedia then unblocks India. Is it a given that things are going to pan out this way? No, but it's quite likely.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International

[tacticalturtle]

…yes it does make sense?

They’re complying within the rules fully, but if they decide the rules are too onerous or compromising on their core mission, the legally correct thing to do is to take their ball and go home.

The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court.

If the citizens of India don’t like this outcome, it’s up to them to fix it.

[ToxicMegacolon]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with it. I was just trying to fully understand what the other commenter said.

If following the law is such a burden on them then they should by all means pack up and leave. This is also what the Delhi High Court said after Wikipedia chose to ignore its order. This applies to all western institutions and corporations. If the expectation is that, Indian courts and the Indian public should continue to bend over then that is not going to happen.

> The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court.

How wikipedia choses to follow rulings of Delhi High Court is not India's problem. This is 100% on wikipedia to implement it without a geo block, so maybe you should take this up with Wikipedia.

[beedeebeedee]

> If the expectation is that, Indian courts and the Indian public should continue to bend over then that is not going to happen.

That's a pretty aggressive stance on this that is not warranted. Wikipedia is pursuing its mission of providing an uncensored source of information created by an open community for the public. Posing the situation as aggressively as you have makes it seem as if you are the one trying to make someone or something "bend over" (or whatever gross turn of phrase you'd like to use).

[ToxicMegacolon]

> (or whatever gross turn of phrase you'd like to use).

This makes it seem like your reply isn't in good faith.

So feel free to twist my words as you please, add your own interpretations to it, and accuse me of whatever you want to accuse me with. I am done discussing this topic with you specifically.

[tacticalturtle]

Ok I’m going to withdraw because I’m a bit confused what you are advocating for.

I initially read:

> Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law.

> Makes sense

As sarcasm (which I acknowledge is tricky to parse on the internet! But it still strongly reads that way).

But from your later comment that was not the case?

[lostlogin]

Missing sarcasm or seeing it when it isn’t there is the bane of forums. Adding a ‘/s’ is lame and detracts from sarcasm.

[ToxicMegacolon]

I was being sarcastic to the other commenter because I see complete withdrawal of Wikipedia from India as an absurd overreaction to what this case is about. That is what the parent comment is calling for, specifically, I quote "Wikipedia should just block India completely."

As to my reply to your comment, I recognize Wikipedia's right to not conduct their business in India if they chose to do so, for whatever reason. I interpret your comment as saying that there would be nothing wrong in Wikipedia exercising this right - which I agree with. So I stated my point earnestly that while I agree there is nothing wrong in exercising this right. It seems what it amounts to is that either the court rules in their favor, or they withdraw from India. If that is the expectation that India courts should just rule in their favor (even when they are in the wrong), then I am sorry but that is not acceptable.

Hope that clarifies things. Either way, I am going to withdraw from this discussion as well

[olivermuty]

This ruling seems as corrupt as they go. What kind of untruths did Wikipedia do to cause this to be «defamation»?

Step 3 would be to broadcast to all of India this corrupt ruling.

[ToxicMegacolon]

> This ruling seems as corrupt as they go

The defamation case is still ongoing. But I guess any ruling that isn't favoring Wikipedia will automatically be "corrupt"

[iforgotpassword]

Maybe not block it themselves, but put a prominent notice at the top linking to the case and article and see what the Indian government will do next. :)

[ToxicMegacolon]

I don't think that will help a lot. This my opinion, but I think most Indians treat western sources such as NYT, BBC to be biased/racist against India. If wikipedia were to put a banner on top, it would just end up being another entry in that list.

[ecosystem]

Are the Indian news sources cited in the allegedly defaming Wikipedia article also considered to be western biased?