• @Bluerasberry: Great report!! scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting in passing that there is another reason that some people aren't participating in public discussion of this matter: we do not want to negatively impact the safety of the editors who've been dragged into this case, or any other Wikimedian in India for that matter. It is often difficult for people who have lived their lives in the relatively open and free societies of North America and Europe to understand how risky it is for people in many other parts of the world to take the leap in participating in the dissemination of free knowledge; they never know which edit can create a real-world problem for them. It is not a hypothetical for thousands of Wikimedians from non-Western countries; in fact, the article mentioned above illustrates that it can happen in our own societies. Risker (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• #How much money does the Wikimedia Foundation send to the editor community in India? deserves some clarification especially given the piece is written like it's for a broad audience. It reads like WMF directly pays editors. Nardog (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just discovered zh:亚洲国际新闻诉维基媒体基金会案. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a direct translation of the archived revision, and a bit more. 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs)
  • It is amusing that Chinese Wikipedia is, in this case, less censored than English (or French?). And yes, this is a WP:NOTCENSORED issue, clearly. No other versions exist at this point - hopefully this will change: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130603111 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that the Hindi version of Asian News International is fairly similar to the en-WP version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the ongoing DHC cases, the Indian government, as in Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, has recently decided to comment on WP/WMF. [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That linked story says per media reports, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry claimed in its notice that a small group exercises editorial control on Wikipedia’s pages which we saw repeated in several breaking stories the day we published. I dug into it a little bit and it seems possible that it all stems from an unnamed source reported by ANI, one of the parties to the case we're reporting on, which seems a little ... well, we're going to need corroboration before deciding what to write in the next issue. If anybody can find the supposed communication from Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, please let us know either here or through the confidential tips link at WP:POST/TIPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting. Thanks Bluerasberry for the insightful writeup. Do you have any sense of what kinds of things Indian editors would like to change in the movement strategy if they could? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with getting the views of Indian editors is that they are the targets of the Indian government and ANI and might be sued or worse if they live in India, so I'd suggest they not reply on-Wiki. I suppose Indians living outside India might respond, so long as they don't have property in India and don't expect to return to India for a long time. They may, of course, send their views to Signpost editors with our promise that we won't reveal names, usernames, etc. about them. IF they are comfortable that their emails can't be hacked, I'd suggest that, but that's a big IF. The final way that we could get genuine Indian opinion here is through the regular Indian press. There are a few commentators who have supported Wikipedia in this case and most of them are saying about what we're saying, with a better understanding of how the Indian legal system works. They also do a bit of "both siding" giving at least a pro forma statement of the government's side of the argument (which is pretty hard for us to do). Why can some in the Indian press give the Wikipedia side of the case? Well, they are more experienced in dealing with the government and know how far they can go. There's also a hint of an argument that I don't quite understand, that if a small newspaper libels somebody it doesn't matter because they won't be heard, but if a big information source like Wikipedia repeats what they say it's a much more serious matter. Hope that helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear - I understand the barriers for Indian editors when it comes to the current court case. I'm wondering more about the difficult relationship which the Wikipedia community in India has had with the Wikimedia Foundation and global Wikimedia community for more than 10 years. Common complaints include lack of representation in important Wikimedia community governance committees... and a persistent sense of not being heard in important movement decisions as a result of not having representation. I'm wondering how our overall movement strategy might be different if Indian representation over the past 10(!) years had been more substantial. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Clayoquot: for clarifying. You want to know about the big picture, mostly about governance. I'll divide that into 2 parts, 1) why Indians don't have a strong enough say in Wiki governance? and 2) what to do about it? (the more useful part)

• I believe that India is the fifth largest source of Wikipedia readers, and that Wiki editors would be a smaller proportion than that suggests on ENwiki. It's easier to read a foreign language than write a foreign langue adequately. ENwiki has a disproportionate effect on governance simply because of its size. Thus a proportionate representation is not going to change things as much as Indians might want. That's compounded by our slow moving ways and emphasis on consensus.
• What to do? Certainly more travel grants, support of local Indian groups and individual project will help, if the Indian government allows it. Bringing money into a country is more difficult than you might think, e.g. Russia and China. My suggestions might be considered a bit radical. Institutions like the BoT, a global council, Aff Com, should all have serious observer positions for under-represented groups. For example, the board might include 4 non-voting observers in the month-to-month business that they do (but that would be at most 2 Indians!). That will ensure that when Indians and other groups have the organization and voting power to put their representatives on the board, there will be somebody prepared to take advantage of it and be known to other groups. When there are non-observer elections that reserve positions for regional seats, e.g. in the 4C group, only regional voters should vote for the regional representatives. Finding a South Asian who represents South Asian views should not depend on what North American and Europeans think (as it is now). I do wonder how much time this will take to have an effect and also whether North Americans and Europeans will be offended by this "affirmative action." But ultimately training for top positions and money is what will work.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: you said Certainly more travel grants speaking from my involvement with Wikimania scholarships people from the region have been prioritised within the limited budgets, and make a significant percentage of the inital offers. In offer scholarship the limitation is not in the WMF or the Wikimania COT decisions it stems from the visa process which are outside our control, Singapore is one of the easiest places to get visas yet many were rejected, Europe is obviously harder for both events the WMF, COT, and a local affiliate all provide the necessary supporting documents, the WMF start providing bursaries for scholars to ensure everyone meets the "financial capacity" to look after themselves while at Wikimania. From my role on the 2021 COT restrictions on cash support directly into India, government requirements mean UG cant be directly funded all money must go through a third part with additional handling fees being paid. There are significant barriers but every effort is done to support the community financially if anything compared to other countries there is a bais towards the community. For the rest WP:BEANS.

There is no comparison between Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some other countries is that UN sanctions current prevent money flowing there, its actions by Indian Governments has caused it to erect its own barriers the Indian Government can change that any day they like.

As for the whole issue of this report, sadly knowingly how it will impact many fine people I'd rather Wikipedia be blocked than the identity of contributors be compromised. Gnangarra 07:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What a bunch of twits. Wikipedia should just let itself go dark in India if the HC can't get the stick out of its ass, setting a precedent that every article related to India can be torched by the fucking idiots in our government would make this whole site pointless. AryKun (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see few voices here from the region itself, so here's my "What I would like for Indian editing" from the movement -

The best thing any Indian community can get from the greater Wikimedia movement (and any similar free organisations) is direct engagement. The dozens of communities that exist are not well connected (and there are more that should exist but do not). Nearly all of them lack resources, with several not aware of what resources they lack.

Any engagement with outside organisations, or direct interactions with skilled veterans in the movement, is going to be a strict positive to the region going forward. The communities have plenty of competent contributors. What they require, above all, is an open ended mind to hear our concerns, and a forum to speak them.

Comments like Smallbones are certainly in the right direction imo. It sometimes is impossible to compete with a Global North contributor, simply because there's just a lot more chances for "committee experience", furthering chances for higher positions. Not to mention the benefits from exposure to different communities and conferences.

Fun story, last Wikimania, one editor unilaterally started helping other South Asian community members with polishing their scholarship applications; anecdotally, that improved the number of scholarships while also teaching editors. That is the kind of resources that the community could really use, more than just straight up money in my opinion.

Soni (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Crucial info missing: I am not seeing this important issue: "on October 28, Wikimedia relented to the High Court’s demand that Wikipedia reveal identifying information of the online users involved in editing the ANI page" [Source https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html]. Seems like a major item to mention in this otherwise solid FAQ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ignoring the irony of a company known as ani getting into legal trouble with wikipedia, what would they even get out of demanding personal info of people who made edits they didn't like that they wouldn't lose getting into this hot water or gain more from not doing stuff worth reporting in the first place? seems like a waste of time or actively shooting yourself in the foot no matter how i look at it. then again, my perspectives are generally a little crooked, so maybe getting the personal info of 3 specific people out of however many editors would be a net gain for this massive media conglomerate with more to lose than they have to gain cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cogsan: The answer is that they are trying to sue the three editors. If they can successfully punish the editors who added/defended the information, that would create a chilling effect which would make other users less likely to add/defend negative information in the future. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  on one hand, fair. on the other, barbra streisand should know why suppressing info is as efficient for stopping its traffic as milk is spicy. it will at best only intimidate some people into probably not making legally accountable claims maybe, with no guarantee that they actually won't. even if that worked, it would provide ample reason for people in every other part of the internet to talk about it

  ...is what i would say, if people in social media cared about wikipedia outside of pointing out vandalism. oh well, they win this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double-checking if random Wiki editors A) can fix typos and B) do so post-publication. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's something we've been doing for 20 years. It would be better, of course, for more copy editors to show up before publication! But please don't make substantive edits, as in changing the meaning, these all have to be approved by the editor-in-chief. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the exact content ANI has issues with. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting quotes, as the link is paywalled.

ANI has objected to following descriptions on its Wikipedia page:

• The news agency has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events"
• Under a new management, ANI has been accused of practicing an aggressive model of journalism focused at maximum revenue output, where journalists were easily dispensable with. Multiple employees have accused ANI of not having any human resource management system and ill-treating their ex-employees."
• In 2020, an investigation by EU DisinfoLab concluded that ANI had on multiple occasions published mostly anti-Pakistan and sometimes anti-China opinion pieces and news content, including opinion pieces falsely attributed to European politicians and other instances of disinformation, and that this material was known to have been sourced from a vast network of pro-India fake news websites run by a certain "Srivasta Group". The report noted that mainstream Indian news media regularly relies on content provided by ANI, and that ANI had on several occasions provided legitimacy and coverage to the entire "influence operation" run by the fake news network, which relied "more on ANI than on any other distribution channel" [to give it] "both credibility and a wide reach to its content". A primary aim of this fake news coverage was to "discredit Pakistan" in international forums. ANI is also believed to have played significant roles as allies of the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency; many of its videos depicted protests by fringe lobby groups and activists, on the aspects of human rights abuse in Pakistan."
• ANI has been also accused of misreporting events, by checkers certified by the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). The Caravan came across several video footages from ANI, wherein logos of random television channels from Pakistan along with Urdu tickers were superimposed on news showcasing India in a positive light; their video editors have admitted to forging clips.
• On 20 July 2023, ANI falsely blamed Muslims for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women during the 2023 Manipur violence.

ANI has said that these edits are false and misleading.

"This malicious conduct of the Defendants ex-facie establishes their ulterior motives of defaming Plaintiff by publishing false and misleading content against Plaintiff," it has argued

I posted this because this signpost issue appears to be doing a guesswork of what ANI finds defamatory. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia editors in India are particular stakeholders of this whole situation."

Shouldn't that first word be "Wikipedia"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other projects that may be impacted, like Wikinews. – robertsky (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what I get from this is that Indias Gov is hellbend on cencorsing anything that feels 'bad' for them. There are some striking similarities to the ^[DE] during the Third Reich, or more recently the GDR. Every 'bad' Goverment tries to controll it's Media. History seems to repeat itself. --Adtonko (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. Totally agree. Thats exactly it. They wants to control the media so they can shape the narrative around the Hindi nationalism schtick and anything doesn't fit that narrative or damages the machine is a target. They are ruthless. scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly nothing that can be done about it. Well there is a way, but we don't need another war Adtonko (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]