Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/In the media

← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

Online safety laws and Wikipedia

• It's interesting that "privacy infringing laws" are considered "a significant issue", as well as "privacy enhancing laws" like Germany's "right to be forgotten." Is it possible that the WMF, Wikimedians at large, and the open knowledge community are seeing the negative impact of various jurisdictions, and not the positive? I would fall out of the clouds if the opposite was the case, as I'm semi-reliably informed the Germans say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC).
  

  Azerbaijan literally jails people who disagree with the ruling dynasty (sorry, democratically elected president). I've disagreed with solavirum in the past but I hope nothing bad happens to our Azerbaijani editors. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• What's happening to Azerbaijani editors is horrible. Is there anything we can do to support them? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

General discussion

• What had happened in India and Azerbaijan should concern WMF more than what it is today. With what’s going on around the world today, we could clearly see that government overreach, censorship, and monitoring may tend to increase. Discussions should be clearly be done to balance between security and privacy. At this point Wikipedia tend to be on “security” as we disallow proxies/VPNs and we logged the IPs and the emails of the editors, but what happened if the government demanded Wikipedia to hand over the data of its editors? Most of the Wikipedia editors are living on countries with good record of freedom of speech, but what happened to those that live on countries that have questionable freedom of speech? Like this case in India - would WMF be willing to close up shop in India just for the sake of protecting few of its editors? Hopefully WMF took this issue more seriously. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• ITN: Absolutely not the point, but while you're Wikipediaing poison snakes, make sure to visit List of dangerous snakes, which is some damn fine en-wiki work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Jengod: Finally, I've got soooooomething new... to obsess about! : D Oltrepier (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• The headline (subheadline?) Bias in Judaism and Zionism related articles is misleading. At a minimum it ought to be something like "Accusations of bias in Judaism and Zionism related articles"; perhaps better would be "some media outlets dislike academic histories of Zionism". As one would be able to tell by going to the Wikipedia article in question, the claims that the cited media outlets dislike are all grounded in top quality sources: academically published books, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc. If there is bias in Judaism and Zionism related articles, it's not there. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Hydrangeans I personally stand by our articles prose, but I also don't see the point in wrapping any criticism we dislike in "alleged/purported/accusation of" type of language. The body of the summary makes it clear, that these publications do not understand nor like our community editorial process. I came up with the suggested titles, because I prefer to be direct with the subject is about, instead of the intentionally more opaque "Bias in religion/ethnicity related articles?" but I take your feedback in good faith. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• In conclusion, ANI is a cesspool for thoughtful Wikipedia:Drama either way ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)