back to article Hi, Pakistan? You do know anyone can edit Wikipedia, right? You don't have to ask

Pakistan's Telecommunications Authority has "degraded" Wikipedia service in the country on the grounds that the crowdsourced encyclopedia was not censoring "sacrilegious" content, and warned it may block the site altogether. A tweet from the Authority (PTA) explains that it approached Wikipedia and asked the website to remove …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Trollface

    "Which reads a lot like the PTA isn't aware that anyone can edit"

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. Come now, you're not expecting a backwards, authoritarian government to actually handle things itself, now are you ?

    We're talking about some midieval adminitrative busybody. Of course it's up to someone else to deal with the problem and, until it is, said adminitrative busybody from the millennia before last will wield the only thing he (because of course it's a he) knows : the banhammer.

    Nice, heavy and comforting in the mind, he will teach a lesson to all those "modern" barbarians : don't fuck with Pakistan.

    Well we have no intention of fucking with Pakistan. It can stay in 1491 if it wants.

    1. Lil Endian Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: "Which reads a lot like the PTA isn't aware that anyone can edit"

      It's the way of governments, make a decision (often daft) and delegate enactment. Granted, a telco shouldn't have a problem, but politicians editing Wikipedia! Not without kindergarten-level hand holding. And the content: laced with more drivel, more trite and more uninformed and biased self-serving opinions. I'm scared... hold me!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Which reads a lot like the PTA isn't aware that anyone can edit"

      There is a surprising amount if if ignorance about Pakistan realpolitik. This is almost certainly not about religion but about the corrupt administration and corrupt military de facto dictatorship trying to control a losing narrative and increasing public anger about the shambolic handling of the economy and inflation which they are trying hide from public view. Blasphemy is just a convenient excuse and everyone who know anything about the current administration of Pakistan knows that these blood sucking parasites do not care about anything other than their ill gotten wealth and relocating abroad.

      I know it's trendy to crap over religion but common guys. This is just lazy

  2. Potemkine! Silver badge

    I hope Wikipedia would reject such modification if their only justification is bigotry. If it doesn't, expect all the pages related to events occurring before October 23, 4004 BC to be deleted.

    1. Lil Endian Silver badge
      Joke

      October 23, 4004 BC

      "We're going way, way back to Cliff Richards' first Number 1! Not 'arf!"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't think the DUP have an online presence.

  3. Emir Al Weeq

    Must try harder

    429,343 websites were deemed "smut."

    Is that all they found? They weren't looking very hard; my "favourites" list is bigger than that.

    1. deadlockvictim

      Re: Must try harder

      True and their definition of 'smut' is quite wide-reaching.

      Just the word 'woman' into any browser on safe-mode and you will already have 'smut'.

      My guess is that the Pakistani authorities are authoritarian in nature and expect other bodies to be equally so.

      And with authoritarian bodies you have to project strength and demand.

      And so, the very idea that they could summon 100 underlings to go and actually make the changes themselves is outside of their ken.

      Who would be weak enough to let anyone to do that?

      Probably the same people who let their womenfolk outdoors without the permission of their father, brother or husband.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Free Speech includes the right to offend people by expressing opinions that are legal *

    * except in the UK, where the Government want to make such speech illegal.

    1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

      Re: Free Speech includes the right to offend people by expressing opinions that are legal *

      except in the UK, where the Government want to make such speech illegal

      If this article and this one are correct then the EU is trying to go full 1984 as well with its Chat Control proposal.

      TL;DR: mandatory mass surveillance of all electronic communications because "think of the children".

      1. anuragbhattrai

        Re: Free Speech includes the right to offend people by expressing opinions that are legal *

        While I do agree that given our powers of communication have increased we should be willing to give up some privacy to ensure there is no untoward messaging regarding trafficking or exploitation, I think our freedom of speech needs to be strengthened in order to prevent the necessity of more open communications from being oppressed further.

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: Free Speech includes the right to offend people by expressing opinions that are legal *

          They have already taken away more privacy from me then I was willing to give up.

  5. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge

    It's things like these that makes me go lolwhut.

  6. sabroni Silver badge
    Happy

    'In early 2016, 429,343 websites were deemed "smut." ISPs were reportedly expected to implement the blocks "at the domain level," causing massive levels of headache to the nation's IT professionals.'

    There's always analogue smut if you need it that badly!

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Analogue smut :)

      NURSE... Where are my dried frog pills!!!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re. Where are my dried frog pills!!!

        fried dog pills?!

        ...

        oh I see, it's Friday, AI calender tell me.

    2. tangentialPenguin

      Analogue smut

      Is that a vacuum tube in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

    3. jake Silver badge

      Has anybody ever properly and/or legally defined "smut"?

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Yes

        Smut: other people finding pleasure in doing things that you dont like, therefore they should be stopped from doing it.

        See also 'free speech' and 'hypocrisy'

  7. Wellyboot Silver badge

    >>convince other editors<<

    2023 edit wars, began they have.

    1. nagyeger
      Mushroom

      Re: >>convince other editors<<

      While not in any way wanting to claim that might equates to right, they are a nuclear state, and they have some convincing tools -->

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: >>convince other editors<<

        AFAIK the Pakistani army are the one responsible, honest and capable organisation in the country. They could manage to edit Wikipedia on this if they weren't too focused on what other articles say about Kashmir.

      2. Aladdin Sane

        Re: >>convince other editors<<

        You misunderstand. They're a nuclear state, AND they're massive tools. Ironically, they wish to block sites featuring massive tools.

        1. Brian 3

          Re: >>convince other editors<<

          Ironically, sites with massive tools are probably OK; sites with females not wearing head appliances are more likely what they're beefing about.

      3. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: >>convince other editors<<

        Wikipedia is based in the US. That's a pissing contest Pakistan may not want to start.

    2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: >>convince other editors<<

      Many years ago a computer magazine (PC Pro?) experimented with editing Wikipedia. They made three edits. The first was the equivalent of changing Trump to the Democrat Party, this was corrected within minutes. The second change, not so current or divisive a subject, lasted a day or two. The final change was to Buzz Aldrin's page. His date of birth was left unchanged but the day was changed from Wednesday to Thursday (or a similar slip) and this was still published several months on.

      The result was not altogether surprising. There was less access and the Internet was still a frontier in a good way - motives were assumed to be good and the Aldrin change was quite subtle.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: >>convince other editors<<

        Some years ago, Trump WAS a Democrat. Here is the wishy-washy, senile old idiot's Party affiliation since 1987:

        Republican from 1987–1999, Reform from 1999–2001, Democrat from 2001–2009, Republican from 2009–2011, Independent from 2011–2012, Republican from 2012 - present. Obviously subject to change without notice.

        And trust me, he'll change his mind again if it makes sense to Trump, the only person on the planet who is important. It absolutely cracks me up that the Senior Leadership in the Republican Party keep saying that Trump is one of them. Dumb-asses, the lot of 'em.

        1. anuragbhattrai

          Re: >>convince other editors<<

          Being willing to switch political allegiances and priorities depending on the needs of one’s country seems to be pretty open minded and thoughtful.

          1. nijam Silver badge

            Re: >>convince other editors<<

            > ...depending on the needs of one’s country...

            It was entirely dependent on what benefit he could get for himself. The country? Not so much.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The price of fame [Joke Alert icon]

    "$100 miliion? Don't give me that crap! My new social media site I'm selling is worth at least $10 billion."

    "Has it been banned by Pakistan yet?"

    "Err, no?"

    "Then WTF! You're darn lucky anyone is prepared to buy it at all!"

  9. jake Silver badge

    I'm sure that Wikipedia ...

    ...is quivering in their boots.

    "OH NOES! We're blocked by Pakistan! Whatever shall we do??????"

  10. WolfFan

    Solution

    1. Block access to the wider internet from Pakistan

    2. See how long it takes them to notice.

    3. Watch the Indians double over laughing.

    4. Watch Saudia, Afghanistan, Iran, and even the likes of Alabama, collectively facepalm and quietly tell Pakistan that they’ve making crazed religious fanatics look bad.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Solution

      More likely:

      1) Pakistan blocks itself.

      2) Anyone who admits to noticing is arrested.

      3) India's own nut-jobs decide this is a great idea and follow suit.

      4) Similarly crazed nut-jobs elsewhere never notice because there's no internet in their holy book.

      1. anuragbhattrai

        Re: Solution

        Nah, Indians work in IT too much to ban the internet.

        They might go full on mechanicum from 40k and worship it like a god though lmao

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Solution

          Indians who work in IT are not the nut-jobs I was worrying about. You may well have a better view of the mood of the country than I do but, from the outside, Modi's supporters come across as semi-detached from the 21st century.

          1. WolfFan

            Re: Solution

            A lot of Modi’s supporters are semi-detached from the 21st century, but Modi isn’t. A rather considerable portion of the Pakistani public are semi-detached from the 14th century, and some of their theocrats from the 7th century. (Ok, maybe the 8th…) Shutting off all contact with the wider Internet would suit a significant chunk of Pakistan just fine. India, not so much.

        2. WolfFan

          Re: Solution

          ‘Might’? I’m pretty sure that certain sections of, for example, Bangalore, already do that little thing. (Yes, I know, it’s been renamed. Can’t remember the official name and can’t be arsed to look it up.)

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pakistan is blasphemous enough

    Bad Pakistan, bad! You know what I’m talking about!

  12. ShortStuff

    Anyone can edit Wikipedia?

    Ha Ha, you're funny, or delusional, of both. Wikipedia regularly censors any conservative viewpoint that doesn't fit in with their liberal agenda. Several of my edits, which were nothing but the truth, have been removed almost as fast as they were entered. Never rely on Wikipedia if you want the truth regarding anything remotely political. All they're good for is seeing pictures of plants and animals.

    1. Julian Bradfield

      Re: Anyone can edit Wikipedia?

      Where on Wikipedia is a "viewpoint" relevant? Were your "truths" verifiable, or were they "your truth"?

    2. moonhaus

      Re: Anyone can edit Wikipedia?

      "Wikipedia regularly censors any conservative viewpoint"

      Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thats a thing that only deals with facts not "viewpoints" or opinion. Maybe you should have read the Wikipedia article on the subject before posting such nonsense or defacing Wikipedia pages.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    PTA

    Pain in The Ass

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like