Jump to content

Talk:Asian News International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




(ANI) contested Wikipedia's intermediary status under the Information Technology (IT) Rules

[edit]

Edit request to add this in this section Asian News International (ANI) contested Wikipedia's intermediary status under the Information Technology (IT) Rules. Sidhant Kumar, the attorney for ANI, contended that the platform might be going beyond what the intermediary guidelines actually permitted because Wikipedia was offering the editors legal assistance. According to Kumar, intermediaries were not allowed to provide communication links or facilitate such communication because of Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act. Judge Subramonium Prasad made the observation that there would very well be a "war" between two users with more editing rights if they disagreed. With a hierarchical structure, certain users have more editorial rights than others on Wikipedia. Kumar contended that what it actually does is outsource to another user, which is against Section 79. In the event that intermediaries do not "select or modify the information contained in the transmission," they are protected from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source
https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-wiki-actions-go-beyond-intermediary-status-ani-delhi-hc/ 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in the media now it doesn't necessarily has to be in this WP-article now. This might get interesting, but just because the lawyers say stuff, we don't have to rush to include it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that this doesn't belong, especially here on this article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the place for a play-by-play of the lawsuit. If anyone wants to do that, they are welcome to at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, but not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia And while doing so, refrain from disclosing the names of judges hearing the case. This precaution aims to prevent online harassment, trolling, and potential abuse directed at judicial personnel.
Avoid including any information that could jeopardize the ongoing legal proceedings. This includes speculative details, unverified claims, or anything that could potentially influence the outcome of the case. Focus solely on verifiable facts and publicly available information.
Be aware that a previous Wikipedia page related to this matter was taken down by court order. This underscores the importance of exercising extreme caution when contributing information about sub judice matters. Madarsa Chhap (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the judges in question are very much in the public record and mentioned by newspapers of record:
[1]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-hc-issues-summons-to-wikipedia-users-who-edited-ani-page/article68868247.ece
I agree with the rest of your message though. Cononsense (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cononsense My own integrity prevents me from following the example of those who act improperly, even if they avoid consequences Madarsa Chhap (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which begs the question why can we then mention it here, if we are (legally) not allowed to mention it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clash of cultures and expectations here. The concept of sub judice runs strong in many Commonwealth nations, India included. It is considered inappropriate to discuss matters of ongoing legal proceedings in the public, in this case the article may have been considered as a public venue/avenue (After all, it did gained tens of thousands of views before it was taken down). I don't think the judge did care much about other venues that we write on about the case. After all, Talk pages and other namespaces' pages are generally not indexed by search engines, and the Chinese version is only read by the Chinese readers. They don't have many Chinese readers in India. This of course runs contrary to the free speech that some others expouse and accustomed to. – robertsky (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it means (to my mind) we currently can't mention actual statements made in court, we can't "discuss" the trial in article space. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yup, you got it. – robertsky (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the cultural context! yes, in the united states such broad restrictions are unconstitutional, tho courts do very specific gag orders in unusual cases. but your info is useful so we can be mindful. Cononsense (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to be removed

[edit]
No consensus to implement. IP may be a sock of a LTA, like DavidWood11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently been blocked for socking this page. Hemiauchenia (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asian News International (Diff ~993740998)

Trangabellam's edit introduced the controversial term "propaganda" into the article on 17-Dec-2020 without sufficient factual basis. The reference to The Caravan appears to be primarily grounded in assumptions, speculation, and hypotheses, rather than concrete evidence. This claim is therefore factually incorrect and should be removed.

Thanks Col J. Singh 103.29.116.83 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by sources that have been reviewed and considered reliable and support the statement. Ravensfire (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to distinguish between speculation and fact. While speculation may be interesting, it should not be treated as definitive truth devoid of facts impractical for an encyclopedia. The Caravan author didnt provided a single concrete factual evidence. However, it goes well with tabloid. The credibility of the source cannot be used as an excuse for skewing facts and truths. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please gain consensus for a change before requesting an edit to a protected page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On December 17, 2020, the contentious word "propaganda" was added to this page. However, rather than providing hard evidence, the reference article The Caravan & The Ken, from which it is derived, seems to rely more on conjecture and hypotheses. As a result, this assertion is untrue and ought to be eliminated.
This is a request for comments asking for support and oppose to the word "propoganda" to be kept in the article. 103.29.116.83 (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended confirmed edit request in December 2024

[edit]

Duplicate sentence in the OpenAI section saying:

The Delhi High Court heard the case first on 19 November 2024, and is scheduled to hear it again on 28 January 2025.The Delhi High Court heard the case first on 19 November 2024, and is scheduled to hear it again on 28 January 2025.

Delete duplicate sentence. Sparkle and Fade talkedits 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some news

[edit]

"“Prayer 2 and 3 granted,” Justice Prasad said while pronouncing the order. Prayer 2 of the interim injunction plea sought a direction on Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content against ANI on its Wikipedia page as well as to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency. Delhi High Court Prayer 3 sought a direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page."

From livelaw.in. I guess we'll see what the Wikimedia Foundation does with its Wikipedia page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be interesting. Valereee (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the idea here is: If the protection/WP:BLUELOCK is removed, then ANI-reps can edit the article without having to arse themselves to become expended confirmed, and if someone changes what the ANI-reps edit, then ANI can demand that those someones show up in Indian courts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which means no editor located in India should make those reverts. Valereee (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you use telepathy on me. But yes, it's a clear ANI-message of "Indians shouldn't edit Indian topics, they'll get sued if they do." Of course, non-Indians might get sued too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha...yeah, this is pretty chilling for editors in India right now. I hope to hell we win in the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping. It worked in Turkey. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but non-indians can say "FUCK YOU". Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courts in India are acting odd. Will courts also start banning pages of all other media who have published report on ANI or other news media? And the court had earlier even ordered the identities of editors to be revealed to them. Nathularog (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction precisely. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven they have extradition laws too for Non-Indians, no need to be too happy this time. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they also have to then apply for extradition, which must be proved in a UK court to be valid. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will be challenged at the Supreme court of India. GrabUp - Talk 10:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure it will be. That's where this was headed all along. But in order to get there, WMF might decide to avoid contempt of court -- which if I understood correctly they did when they blacklocked the article about the case, would prevent being able to appeal -- by complying with the lower court's ruling while it files the appeal. Valereee (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could helpfully remove the article protection if you like. I'm not sure what would happen then, but I'm interested to find out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, nothing good - or at least nothing constructive. CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you, familiar with Wikipedia or something!? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not at all, in fact, I was just born yesterday! CommissarDoggoTalk? 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curiosity killed the cat. :D I actually think I may arguably be involved, which feels very meta. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp Challenged in Supreme Court! So what? There is already democratic backsliding going on in India. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xhivetozaragrivropa: You should see this: 'Why so touchy?' Supreme Court slams Delhi HC for Wikipedia takedown order. GrabUp - Talk 13:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we need a COI tag, and maybe a NNPOV tag. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No on the article, the indian courts have now said COI editors can edit, in order to put the companies POV. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course won't be "putting the companies POV", it'll be "removing the negative material". Since that leaves editors in the unenviable position of having to put the material back (and therefore putting themselves in ANIs focus), I wonder if the article should actually be admin-only for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We told them to remove the lock, they made it worse." The court will love that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we could remove the protection completely, then if the above happens people could restore the material using anonymous proxies, which are of course pretty much untraceable. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)#[reply]
Unless Wikipedia changes the rules, I will do it without being anonymous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians will do what they'll do, and then talk about what they did. But apart from that, it's possible that WMF will take some sort of action, office action or make a comment like they did at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder/Archive 4#Wikimedia Foundation statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, that would be preemptively , the bluelock is still there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, until there's an office action, I think it should stay locked. There's no question this will be appealed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in WP-verse, the lock makes sense, for WP:COI/WP:PAID editing and other reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I don't suppose this means that the court case that lead to the takedown of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation now is concluded? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the Supreme Court has already said the high court was being silly about that.
Does anyone know where to find the documents that specify exactly what content ANI is alleging is defamatory? Valereee (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Asian News International/Archive 1#ANI sues WMF for defamation - basically it's the part where the article mentions that sources have called them propaganda. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles linked in the Mentioned by Media section at the top of the talk page also cover the demand in more detail. It's basically what you would expect - remove anything bad, let us say what we want in Wikipedia's voice and don't you (Wikipedia) dare tell us otherwise. Ravensfire (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we do not put it in Wikipedia's voice. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's attributed. In the lead, the sources are called out by name that did the investigations. At the time of the filing it wasn't as clear but our article said been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions, so somewhat attributed and not fully saying "... is a propaganda tool". ANI wants all of that removed based on the demand - nothing negative allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But (surely) the ruling is based upon what then plantif have said we said, which we have altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ANI has said the version of the article they were complaining about is not on the record and asked that it be placed into the record, so I'm assuming it's about what the article said the day they filed, not what it says today? It's pretty clear ANI don't really understand how Wikipedia works. Or the Streisand Effect. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back in December the High Court had said it needed to review the article and its sources...does this interim ruling mean the court has done that and decided the alleged defamatory content is false? I don't really understand what's at Defamation#India, but there's nothing in that section that says anything about whether what has been said is true or false. Which makes no sense. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement occupies 25% of the lead when it is significantly lesser in the the content by percentage at Asian_News_International#Bias_and_propaganda.
I suggest rewording to shorten it from
Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that ANI has been closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress Party rule, but especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, with its reporting alleged to favour and serve as a "propaganda tool" for the government's agenda.
something similar to
Reports by various news organisations such as The Caravan, The Ken, and Newslaundry, and a study that analysed Twitter engagement of BJP members of parliament reveal that ANI's coverage of the BJP government has been favourable.
This would bring in the other sources as well and at the same time shortening the lead. – robertsky (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The court: "On perusal of the page pertaining to the Plaintiff (ANI), it appears that the statements…are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Defendant No.1 professes itself to be an encyclopaedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher, [the court] stated." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the same piece: Justice Prasad observed that the alleged defamatory statements on ANI’s Wikipedia page “are not verbatim reproduction” of articles cited as sources, “and these impugned statements are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these articles were written and the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the articles. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned statements are ex-facie defamatory and tarnishes the professional reputation of the Plaintiff. I think the judge is telling us, "you need to quote and attribute". And honestly, if it's true that "statements ... are devoid of the context of the articles", then that's really bad. Anyone who is giving an opinion here needs to go back and read the Ken, Caravan, and NewsLaundry sources again to see if that is true, because if it is, we need to fix it. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that had happened, pretty much, since this thing has been ongoing for awhile and been re-written with more quotes etc. But since I haven't done it myself, I can't vouch for it. But of course we should aim for the article being WP-good, including citing WP:RS, in-text-attributing when reasonable, WP:LEAD-adherence etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should start a RFC on "Is the article WP-good regarding sources, content and NPOV?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least those sections of the article that deal with criticism of ANI. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...That would possibly exclude the Asian_News_International#Establishment_and_early_years_(1971–2000) section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also wondered at court's "is higher". Higher than what? SikiWiki? india.gov.in? ANI? Any source we cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that an ambox be added at the top saying that "Delhi HC thinks Wikipedia's paraphrasing of the sources is misleading. So here's a list of sources, read yourself." in a more professional and encyclopedic tone. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if we no longer use the wording they complained about, are we not in fact obeying the court order, or does it require us to remove ALL mention of it (even in regard to the case about it)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. We should probably not do anything out of the ordinary until our own lawyers (via WMF Office) tell us we have to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that. The WMF has said, correctly, that it doesn't control content. If they tell us to change something, they can't make that argument.
I think we keep editing the article as usual, and if consensus here changes, we make those changes even if the changes coincide with the opinions of the court.
If someone who appeared to be smart and well-intentioned came in here and said, "The lead sounds too much like WikiVoice, those articles we're sourcing to are all opinion pieces, we need to attribute to make that clear", we'd discuss. The viewpoint of at least one smart and presumably well-intentioned reader is no different. Let's not dig in our heels because we disapprove of this lawsuit. Let's make the article as good as we can make it. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, and if they had had one they would not have NEEDED TO GO TO COURT TO GET THEIR WAY. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they'd had one what? Valereee (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a well-reasoned policy-based argument, you do not need to go to court to get us to obey it, we will support the edit. Then fact they took this to court to get their way, means they did not have a well-reasoned policy-based argument. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we agree. I said we should probably not do anything out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to contradict what you're saying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant not waiting for our lawyers to tell us to remove content, because they probably can't. But, yes, removing problematic content is ordinary. :) Valereee (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we consider The Caravan and The Ken unusable as sources because they are also Indian media and therefor not relevant when they write about what's potentially a competitor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so? I mean, if the NYT reports about WaPo, or vice versa, we'd believe them. If they're RS, we can use them. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Anyone want to argue they're not RS as we use them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A policy discussion from 2020 found consensus against disqualifying media organisations as reliable sources solely because they report negative information about competing media organisations. I support retaining the content from The Caravan and The Ken in this article. — Newslinger talk 06:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, which owns a 26% stake in ANI, did not respond to a request for comment. It has previously said it is not involved in ANI's business practices or operations. Well, that source must be considered very reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it completely bizarre that Reuters owns a big chunk of ANI. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, apparently WMF is appealing[2][3], if not to the SC just yet. This was a little encouraging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow, and that seems to be an editorial, not just an opinion piece. Yes, I find that encouraging, too. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improving interp of sources

[edit]

Here is what the lead currently says, and the sources we're sourcing to. Some are behind paywalls; the archive.org version of The Caravan is also behind a paywall, so if anyone can find it on another site, let's add that here so people can read. Ditto The Ken. Please, anyone who wants to work on this: Read the sources, keeping in mind overall context of that source and whether it's at least partially an opinion piece. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that ANI has been closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress Party rule, but especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, with its reporting alleged to favour and serve as a "propaganda tool" for the government's agenda.[1][2] ANI has been accused of amplifying a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government, anti-Pakistan, and anti-China propaganda,[3][4][5] as well as quoting apparently fabricated sources associated with these websites.[6]

References

  1. ^ Donthi, Praveen (1 March 2019). "The Image Makers : How ANI Reports The Government's Version Of Truth". The Caravan. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  2. ^ Ahluwalia, Harveen; Srivilasan, Pranav (21 October 2018). "How ANI quietly built a monopoly". The Ken. Archived from the original on 16 January 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  3. ^ Hussain, Abid; Menon, Shruti (10 December 2020). "The dead professor and the vast pro-India disinformation campaign". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 November 2022. Retrieved 10 December 2020. The network was designed primarily to "discredit Pakistan internationally" and influence decision-making at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and European Parliament, EU DisinfoLab said.
  4. ^ Saeed, Saim; Kayali, Laura (9 December 2020). "New pro-India EU website enrolling MEPs campaigns against Pakistan". Politico. Archived from the original on 6 January 2021. Retrieved 9 December 2020.
  5. ^ Rej, Abhijnan (12 October 2020). "EU Non-Profit Unearths Massive Indian Disinformation Campaign". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 12 November 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2020.
  6. ^ "Modi Govt's Go-To News Agency ANI 'Quotes Geopolitical Experts, Think Tanks That Don't Exist': Report". The Wire (India). 23 February 2023. Archived from the original on 12 February 2024. Retrieved 19 September 2024.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archive.today site might be of help. Remember also that the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of article content and getting the body right (if it isn't) should perhaps come first. I'm all for improving the article from the WP-POV (WP:GA, perhaps?) but per court statement
"On perusal of the page pertaining to the Plaintiff (ANI), it appears that the statements…are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages."
I think it's possible that this court will consider any source we use that's not ANI itself to be "but editorials and opinionated pages." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which should be fine, if anything that could reasonably be interpreted as opinion are quoted and attributed, and we're paying attention to context when that's relevant to whatever we're quoting. I started with the lead only because it's a short paragraph sourced to six articles, several of which are fairly short, and it seemed like a manageable thing to bite off first. If we find things that concern us there, I'd suggest we start the relevant portions of the sections from scratch. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Here is the Caravan article without Paywall, (wait a little bit to load the page). GrabUp - Talk 15:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought adding links to archived versions of paywalled articles wasn't appropriate. Did i get it wrong? Are they allowed? Lunar-akaunto／talk 12:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy prohibiting the use of archived versions of paywalled articles. In fact, {{Cite web}} and similar citation templates are specifically designed to show the unpaywalled archive link as the primary link in the citation when the source is currently paywalled. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What this statement by WMF

[edit]

Wikimedia had argued before the court that it is an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, has no role with respect to the statements made by three individuals who edited ANI’s page on its platform.


Why WMF throwing the editors under the bus. My question to WMF Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I agree that WMF should do more to protect us, they are kind of right. They have no authority to tell us what to do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s like WMF is saying to the Indian courts, ‘Do whatever you want with them—raid their homes, arrest them, make their lives hell. Their edits? Not our headache.’ It feels cold… like they’re just tossing people to the wolves and walking away without a second thought Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those poor 3 individuals Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are saying "we do not employ them, we do not tell them what to do, we are not responsible for their actions". This is how WMF has always operated; they are not (in fact) in charge of any wiki. And this is snow entering wp:soap territory, if yoo have a complaint against WMF take it up with them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing anything other than that means the WMF is responsible for what we all say and has to take a proactive role in moderating content. Yes, it has to preserve its intermediary status (which has much weaker protections in India compared to the US) while also trying to help the involved editors, which is a difficult tightrope. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&oldid=1284403902"