Technology

59647 readers

3882 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

215

Is the Wikimedia Foundation about to sell out its editors—and its principles? (www.thewikipedian.net)

submitted 20 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 108 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

What the actual fuck

Edit:

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

Guess I'll be watching this one closely.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 34 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 hours ago

However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry.

Seems reasonable

[–] [email protected] 62 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

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

only to the court, not the wider public

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

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

This bit also seemed important

[–] [email protected] 40 points 18 hours ago

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

Sounds easy enough to me.