Talk:Information Technology Rules, 2021

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Significant article issues mean the nomination cannot be approved at this time. The nominator has made a comment below suggesting they are fine with the nomination being closed.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that new rules in India, if implemented, would change Wikipedia worldwide?  Source: Because the resource is curated by language and not geographic market, the rules would change the entire website, not just Indians’ access to the knowledge, the Foundation said.
  • ALT1:... that the Wikimedia Foundation has written a letter to the Indian IT Minister regarding the new government guidelines which, if implemented, would severely disrupt Wikipedia's model? Source: Wikipedia writes to IT Minister: New govt guidelines will severely disrupt our model

• Reviewed: Reviewing

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

• Kautilya3, do these hooks seem ok? Accurate? DTM (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic but there are significant issues. These include:

1. WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. As Wikipedia would be affected, we have a WP:COI and so promoting the issue on our main page might be considered improper.
2. The proposed regulations are a draft which is still subject to change but WP:DYKHOOK states "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". For example, here's a recent source that says "Only the big social media firms may face tougher online content regulation norms". Does that include Wikipedia? It's not clear and won't be final until the draft becomes law.
3. The proposed regulations are framed as an amendment to the law of 2011 but we don't seem to have an article about that such as Intermediary Guidelines. It would better to work on what's already law and add a section about the proposed amendments. That way, there's more stability and context.
4. A QPQ still seems needed but that's a comparatively minor issue. Best to settle the major issues first.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Thank you for the thorough review and also pointing out that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". I overlooked this. I think I will go ahead and see how to work on Intermediary Guidelines, where the content of this article will be better suited; or maybe if they better fit into the main Information Technology Act, 2000 article.

Accordingly I guess this DYK can be closed right? DTM (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism?

We need to discuss problems of this legislation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)