Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:22, 29 September 2024

Indian courts order Misplaced Pages to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

•  PDF download
•  E-mail
•  Mastodon
•  LinkedIn
•  Facebook
•  X (Twitter)
•  Reddit

Indian high court demands name be taken down

In the wake of a high-profile sexual assault in Kolkata last month, India's courts have demanded that Misplaced Pages remove of the name of a victim from an article on the crime. While some national and local media outlets reported the name of the victim at the time, as did various international media sources, the laws of India, prohibit media from publicizing the names of victims of especially heinous crimes.

The incident was widely reported on 10 August, the day after it occurred; English Misplaced Pages editors created the article a day after that. By 13 August, editors began debating whether to mention the victim's name. On 16 August, that debate became part of a discussion on how to title the article, which was ongoing until 9 September, when the disagreement about including the name split into its own discussion. All of this was part of the consensus-building process usual and familiar to editors, where editorial decisions are reached by group discussion about how to implement policies and guidelines.

On 16 September, the Supreme Court of India ordered Misplaced Pages to remove the name. The Free Press Journal (report), The Hindu (report), and The Times of India (report) are among the many sources to report on the court's order. In this case, and as often happens when institutions make requests of Misplaced Pages, the court made its request with some presumption that Misplaced Pages has an editorial leader who can issue binding orders. As is known among Misplaced Pages editors, there is no such person: even the Wikimedia Foundation does not control the content of articles under Misplaced Pages's policies.

Misplaced Pages editor deliberation

In response to the court decision, the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation posted a notice on the talk page of the article, encouraging Misplaced Pages editors to deliberate carefully on the issue and "explain clearly why you feel the balance of interests lies one way or the other, in order to reach consensus accordingly". Misplaced Pages editors did that, and reached a decision to exclude the victim's name. User:Tamzin, a volunteer editor, closed the discussion and authored the consensus statement.

The final decision was to exclude the name from the article. While closing statements typically are descriptions written by Misplaced Pages editors and for Misplaced Pages editors, Tamzin included a summary explanation of the overall process in anticipation that the court, media, and public observers may wish to examine both the consensus and discussion. It will not come as a surprise to Misplaced Pages editors that Wikipedians value their editorial independence. The closing statement emphasizes that Misplaced Pages editors did not arrive at that decision at the behest of the court, but rather because community deliberation found reasons for doing so and because a supermajority of editors supported the decision.

Arguments for and against name inclusion

The article is 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, and it begins, "On 9 August 2024, a 31-year-old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, was raped and murdered in a college building."

One set of arguments about the name relates to victims' rights and women's rights. The argument in favor of naming the victim is that her story becomes known and enables activism to reduce violence against women. The argument opposed is that in some cases, and this case in particular, naming the victim greatly endangers and disturbs their family, social network, colleagues, and supporters.

Another set of arguments relates to censorship of Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's own WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The argument in favor of publishing the name is that maximal freedom in publishing is the preferred position. The argument opposed is that naming the victim is not a censorship issue, as Misplaced Pages will definitely have an article on the crime, and that article does not benefit significantly by including the name of the victim.

Another set of arguments is about following the lead of what other media outlets do. Arguments in favor of publishing the name point to seeming WP:Reliable sources and reputable journalists who are publishing the name. Arguments opposed to publishing the name make various claims, including that sources publishing the name are mistaken, or that they have since removed the name, or that the higher quality sources do not publish the name while lower quality sources do. Misplaced Pages editor User:Fowler&fowler checked various sources and reported which ones do not publish the name.

A final set of arguments is on the practicality of collaboration between Misplaced Pages and the government of India. The argument in favor of publishing the name assumes that other arguments establish that Misplaced Pages editors should publish the name, and in that context, it is best for Misplaced Pages as an international media source outside the jurisdiction of Indian government control to disregard the government request. Arguments opposed to publishing the name include respect for the expertise of those courts, respect for national decision making to know what is best for local culture, anticipation of a good future of peaceful collaboration with the government of India by granting this request, and concern for the burden on Misplaced Pages editors in India if they bear the responsibility of an online global decision including non-Indian Misplaced Pages editors.

– BR

Discuss this story

• I'm fine with the name being removed on the grounds that BLP rules still apply to recent deaths and that quality RSes stopped using it. However I'm worried about this case emboldening the Indian legal system to bully Misplaced Pages. The laughably misinformed executive causes enough problems as is, and now the judiciary... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (/_{my edits}) 07:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) P.S., fun fact about the case in the link: It was the ruling government's own acolytes that started the spate of libel that was eventually added, then quickly removed by RC patrol, from the page in question. It's kinda like if the teacher's kid beat you up at lunch and then the teacher berated you later for your clothes being torn.

• For the interested: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#The_Kolkata_"case",_wider_implications?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that this may be interpreted by the ruling party in India as Misplaced Pages following the order of their court. On a positive side, if this means the courts attempt to censor Misplaced Pages in the future it may be a more unambiguous situation where Misplaced Pages is in the right and they are in the wrong. In addition to doing what seems to be the right thing by the victim and surviving family members in this case. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  

• Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2024-09