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

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

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.

Isn't it pretty normal for judges to prohibit plaintiffs and defendants from talking about active court cases outside of the court room? I doubt Asian News International is allowed to publish articles about the case, either.

most democratic countries cosplay as democracies. just like most communist countries cosplayed as communist.

ideology in its purest form. After the death of God, you need something to fill that unapproachable void. So you inject ideals- civil service, egalitarianism, tolerance, justice, etc -- values that are virtuous and aspirational, but ultimately are just shiny veneers over a darker truth. it functions as scaffolding for systems that serve the interests of raw power. it is theater. performance. spectacle. underneath, the mechanisms of control, inequality, and corruption remain unchanged.

don't make the mistake of believing that India is somehow unique here

and half the population (women) don't have the same rights as men

Backed up by something or just your feelings

Good luck getting an edit to stick when you're doing it privately on a high traffic or political page. Wikipedia is known to have an entrenched little clique that works hard at gatekeeping.

We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has changed about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step.

Hopefully not block the entire website in India.

Well I never

Doesn't apply in this case, it's about a decision that is still pending

https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles

Edit: Don't downvote this person please. They just phrased their question badly.

First time I'm hearing about either of these which is going to be a problem.

What are the differences in those sites’ governance which would immunize them from a similar legal attack by the BJP?

They probably don’t have half the legal staff of Wikipedia.

Who actually uses those sites

https://encycla.com/_search/main https://ibis.wiki/article/This_is_a_test_article,[email protected]

In response to your edits:

Have you actually read your replies?