Talk:Asian News International

ANI files plea against OpenAI

[1][2] ANI claimed "that ChatGPT falsely attributed political news to the agency, which could lead to the spread of fake news and potentially cause public disorder." Should this be mentioned in the article? - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems journalism is not enough to pay the bills anymore. "In the first such suit alleging copyright infringement by OpenAI, the news agency has sought damages of Rs 2 crore" [3] - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OR maybe Wikipedia is no longer place of "educational purpose" and expansion of knowledge anymore. Anyone is free to file as many case as they want to if necessary, for that matter ChatGPT has been sued by many organizations for various reasons `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 20:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggest a text. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

However remember Wikipedia is not wp:news and really this might be seen as wp:undue, any one can launch a court case, what matters is how it ends. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

i added more details about what ANI vs OpenAI entails. Cononsense (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we need blow by blow account s of any cases. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

My edits were not blow by blow imho (like dates and such). More so high level details about the case. Cononsense (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

In case someone wonders why there are now two of these templates: They have a "max" of 30 items, so a second one was needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

@Slatersteven: 103.29.116.83 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Completely agree that this doesn't belong, especially here on this article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

the judges in question are very much in the public record and mentioned by newspapers of record:

[4]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)

@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)

We are not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you know: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

yup, you got it. – robertsky (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Edits to be removed

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.

---

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=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)

Supported by sources that have been reviewed and considered reliable and support the statement. Ravensfire (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please gain consensus for a change before requesting an edit to a protected page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

• support it seems well sourced. We do not say they do we say they are accused, they have been accused. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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 ^talk_edits 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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