• Aatube
      link
      fedilink
      186 hours ago

      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

    • Otter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        298 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.

  • @wikipediasuckscoopOP
    link
    English
    -249 hours ago

    It’s likely that the editors and principles have been betrayed by this point and thus Encycla and ibis.wiki should be the places we can flock to.