Page 1 of 1

This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:10 am
by Graaf Statler
Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
Nice, maybe they can take a few left over pirate flags with them. :mrgreen:

Of course this is total wiki-bullshit, wikipedia is in no way a human right, there is not any legal ground and do you really think Endogan would listen if they should win? What they never will do? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe mister Endogan will say, o the European Court of human rights has ordered to lift the block of wikipedia so we will lift it?

HA! The jokers! They are even bigger losers and jokers than I already thought! Endogan listening to a European court! Snow lady's and gentleman, snow.

Re: This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 9:06 am
by Graaf Statler
Double post.

Re: This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:00 pm
by CrowsNest
It is frankly bizarre now they keep referring to Wikipedia as a platform for free expression in how they create, debate and add to Wikipedia articles, because of course your freedom to express yourself as a Wikipedia editor, much less as a Turkish speaker or even citizen of Turkey, is extremely limited. The idea it is a debating society of any kind, is laugable. WP:NOTFORUM.

As I'm sure I said at the time, one of the "rich perspectives" from the Turkish POV, is that at the time of his counter-coup which led to his consolidation of powers, Erdogan evidently had wide public support, at least insofar as it was expressed by the people who went out into the streets in large numbers despite the presence of military units whose intentions were in question. This reason for their failure is not even mentioned in the introduction to the coup article, and in the main body it is mentioned, but only as a theory, as if it could be incorrect, the counter-point being the coup was just poorly planned and executed and Erdogan got lucky. Obviously the sub-text is that the people who rose up against the coup, before and after Erdogan rallied them, were not in their right minds, enthralled by state propaganda etc.

The populace were arguably ill-informed, but then did they not have access to Wikipedian at that time? Yes, they did. The ban came after the coup failed. State propaganda has been an aspect of Turkish life for decades, if it were not the case they might have become an EU Member state by now. Fifteen years of access to Wikipedia doesn't seem to have improved things in Turkey one bit. It is worth noting, giving these claims Wikipedia is a platform for Turkish views, that the names of the academics they have cited to analyse that aspect of the coup, don't sound very Turkish to me. They are perspectives from a Romanian Jew educated in Britain, an Indian? American, and a white American.

This is the central weakness of Wikipedia's argument. If their chosen method of assembling and disseminating knowledge really does present all sides responsibly and make everyone more informed and bring the world together in consensus over what is the truth of any matter, if it really does effectively counter state propaganda by connecting people, why is their period of dominance of the information space coinciding with one of the most tumultuous and divided periods of human history? Most of this is happening in places where Wikiepdia is not blocked, most notably their main consumer (and source of editors), the good old US of A.

As anyone who spends any time studying it knows, Wikipedia isn't in the business of reflecting all sides of a debate in due proportion to their merits, much less debunking all state propaganda regardless of origin. Wikipedia reflects the biases of the Western world, their claimed commitment to the "neutral point of view" a complete fop to brainless idiots. In extremis, they have been enthusiastic facilitators of the combat troops fighting their political and culture wars.

They bring up the fact they have different language versions such as Turkish, like we don't already know the best way to realise Wikipedia is not in the business of universal global truth, is to compare and contrast different articles in different languages. In theory it is working toward universal truth, but as is proven time and again here, Wikipedia does not work in practice. In their settled state, they are in the business of reflecting the biases of the Western mainstream media, and to a lesser extent Western academia, and debunking only the claims of state's deemed pariahs. You know what the common thread there is. State propaganda is state propaganda, it doesn't have to come from dictatorships.

Freedom of expression is the absolute worst legal argument they should be making before the Court, because of course this freedom encompasses the right to believe whatever you like, empirical truth and testable hypothesis be damned, most notably to hold religious views. Shit, as we see in America's much vaunted constitution, bigotry is the Ultimate form of Free Speech. Europe is a little more enlightened, but it is not yet a secular technocratic society. Magic man in the sky, or base human insincts, as well as a wide variety of entirely mainstream political beliefs that are considered bonkers by USicans as represented by their 'democracy', still form a large part of European ideas of what it means to be free to express yourself.

They also mention freedom of the press. Eh? Unless this is a reference to credentialed journalists at Wikinews, and I severely doubt it is, it reveals the entire weakness of their case. Just as they aren't a debating society or a blogging platform, they are not a news provider.

They are legally not a content provider in any sense of the law, except ironically in their obligation to take down what Courts say they have to take down. Sadly the only court they seem to give a fuck about in that respect is the US court, so the ECHR is entitled to wonder why they are even pretending to give a shit about what the European Courts consider the fundamental rights of the people under its jurisdiction.
The Wikimedia Foundation is represented by Can Yeginsu, who leads a team of barristers practicing from 4 New Square Chambers in London, and Gonenc Gurkaynak at ELIG Gurkaynak Attorneys-at-Law in Istanbul.
Again, eh? Retaining Turkish lawyers to sue the Turkish government either exposes Wikipedia to the charge they are putting lives at risk, or the ability to express yourself in Turkey is not so limited, certainly not in a "violating fundamental freedoms" fashion as they claim. And if the Turkish lawyers will be constrained in what they can say or do on Wikipedia's behalf, which they have to be of the claims of censorship and unconstitutionality hold, it begs the question why have they hired them in the first place? I am quite sure local representation is not a requirement of the EHCR, so it appears to be all about the PR angle.

Re: This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:54 pm
by Graaf Statler
One small remark, the European Court of Human Rights is as far as I know a institution of the Council of Europe and not a EU institution. Correct me if I am wrong, but the EU and Council of Europe are different institutions. Very confusing.

Re: This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 3:16 pm
by Graaf Statler
I am sorry, it is almost killing me. I am pissing my pains.

Today, we proceed to the European Court of Human Rights, an international court which hears cases of human rights violations within the Council of Europe, to ask the Court to lift the more than two-year block of Wikipedia in Turkey.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think Bart Wikipedia Legal has giving a helping hand. We are talking about a country where not long ago the presidential airplane with the president on board was almost shoot down by a army F!6. What has shoot down a Russian fighter and what was almost bombed by Poetin afterwards. But no, the wiki lawyers have the solution. Lets ask a complet powerless court to unblock us in Turkey. Of course that Turkish barrister could safe accept this case, this is so laughable no one in Turkey will take this serious, it is not any tread for the Turkish state.
They are all crying of laughing there, that is for sure!

Re: This is rediciles

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 8:39 pm
by Graaf Statler
Collect WO wrote:The narrowest ruling would be that the WMF - and an organization - has no absolute right to "freedom of expression" in itself. The broadest ruling would be that WMF, itself, is a "publisher" of opinions, and is not protected at all. And that WMF is thus subject to the rules of each member-state of the EU with regard to "opinions" published therein (the Singapore rationale if you want to look that up).

Ah, I understand there mistake. They didn't notice Turkey is no EU member and the European Court of Human Rights is not a EU court. They didn't know it is a paper tiger without any jurisdiction in Turkey! This court can only advice the Turkish government but have no possibility to take any sanctions.

Well, it seems to me clear what the government Endogan will do with this "advice" if it not ends up in a mistrial. :mrgreen:

In four pieces, a string, a hole in the middle and it saves toilet paper! :lol:

What a waste of donor money again!

Somey wrote:It won't work, but on the plus side, Erdo─čan is 65 years old so he'll probably only be in power for another 20 years or so.

Absolute, and if not they have for sure a successor with the same ideas. Because in many parts of Turkey is Endogan and his AK Parti very populair. Beside that I am wonder if Endogan will give any attention to any European court seen his extreem poor relation with the European country's in general. Holland has even thrown a few years ago a Turkish minister out of the country as unwanted stranger when she came here to vist the country and to talk with people of Turkeys origin. ... eling.html