I never asked about visa status during interviews as that was purely an HR issue or something the hiring manager needed to deal with. My job was to assess people purely on technical ability and to a lesser degree, ability to communicate effectively (in English). We never really even bothered with cultural fit--if the person seemed decent, we gave good feedback on them. There was so much fraud to wade through, however. I got so that I could spot those "templated" resumes very quickly. It's kind of a tell when someone has worked say, five different 6-month contracts in five geographically dispersed US cities! That would be ridiculously expensive to keep bopping around the US like that! If their skillset and work was any good, they would either get renewed or find another gig in the same locale.
> if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. It seems below is the sequence of events you are advocating for:
1. Wikipedia is allowed to legally represent themselves in the court of law.
2. Court looks at the case presented by ANI and Wikipedia, and decides that ANI is right and Wikipedia is wrong
3. Wikipedia should take this out on average Indian citizens, and make them pay because Wikipedia was found to be at fault in a court of law.
This[0] is the Wikipedia article that ANI has beef with. The claims of propaganda are all supported by ample secondary sources from Indian news organizations like Caravan Magazine and the Ken.
ANI wants Wikipedia to provide the names of the editors that added the details to the article. Once Wikipedia reveals those names, ANI will presumably sue them for defamation and force them to remove their contributions. While the edit history will remain, few are likely to read it.
Suing the editors and forcing them to retract their edits on Wikipedia will have a chilling effect on anyone Indian that tries to point out what ANI and similar organizations are doing. But if Wikipedia blocks India and the issue blows up in the media, ANI will be forced to back off and the article will stay up. Wikipedia then unblocks India. Is it a given that things are going to pan out this way? No, but it's quite likely.
They’re complying within the rules fully, but if they decide the rules are too onerous or compromising on their core mission, the legally correct thing to do is to take their ball and go home.
The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court.
If the citizens of India don’t like this outcome, it’s up to them to fix it.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with it. I was just trying to fully understand what the other commenter said.
If following the law is such a burden on them then they should by all means pack up and leave. This is also what the Delhi High Court said after Wikipedia chose to ignore its order. This applies to all western institutions and corporations. If the expectation is that, Indian courts and the Indian public should continue to bend over then that is not going to happen.
> The rest of us not in India don’t want to be affected by the rulings of a Delhi court.
How wikipedia choses to follow rulings of Delhi High Court is not India's problem. This is 100% on wikipedia to implement it without a geo block, so maybe you should take this up with Wikipedia.
> If the expectation is that, Indian courts and the Indian public should continue to bend over then that is not going to happen.
That's a pretty aggressive stance on this that is not warranted. Wikipedia is pursuing its mission of providing an uncensored source of information created by an open community for the public. Posing the situation as aggressively as you have makes it seem as if you are the one trying to make someone or something "bend over" (or whatever gross turn of phrase you'd like to use).
> (or whatever gross turn of phrase you'd like to use).
This makes it seem like your reply isn't in good faith.
So feel free to twist my words as you please, add your own interpretations to it, and accuse me of whatever you want to accuse me with. I am done discussing this topic with you specifically.
I was being sarcastic to the other commenter because I see complete withdrawal of Wikipedia from India as an absurd overreaction to what this case is about. That is what the parent comment is calling for, specifically, I quote "Wikipedia should just block India completely."
As to my reply to your comment, I recognize Wikipedia's right to not conduct their business in India if they chose to do so, for whatever reason. I interpret your comment as saying that there would be nothing wrong in Wikipedia exercising this right - which I agree with. So I stated my point earnestly that while I agree there is nothing wrong in exercising this right. It seems what it amounts to is that either the court rules in their favor, or they withdraw from India. If that is the expectation that India courts should just rule in their favor (even when they are in the wrong), then I am sorry but that is not acceptable.
Hope that clarifies things. Either way, I am going to withdraw from this discussion as well
Maybe not block it themselves, but put a prominent notice at the top linking to the case and article and see what the Indian government will do next. :)
I don't think that will help a lot. This my opinion, but I think most Indians treat western sources such as NYT, BBC to be biased/racist against India. If wikipedia were to put a banner on top, it would just end up being another entry in that list.
It goes way back to when some 700 MHz LTE spectrum was auctioned off in 2007. Before the auction and before the FCC finalized the rules that would apply to the spectrum the FCC commissioners were circulating drafts of rules they were considering. One of the drafts was proposing open access rules.
Google wrote to the FCC and made a binding commitment to bid at least $4.3 billion if the final rules included certain open access rules. The FCC then included those rules, thus guaranteeing they would get at least $4.3 billion.
Verizon outbid Google and so got that spectrum along with those open access requirements, which included no SIM locking.
In 2018 Verizon, citing fraud concerns, asked the FCC to relax the no locking rule. The FCC agreed, allowing a 60 day lock.
The regional BBQ culture of different sauces and meats in the US has nothing to do with what the word was used to describe in the Caribbean. What was described as BBQ hundreds of years ago in the Caribbean, as a way of cooking fish, wouldn't even be considered BBQ in the US.
At least they are doing something about it. Unlike the US where school kids get shot on a regular basis and they are all completely in denial of it. Not even Taliban does that.
I tell the interviewer that "I will go above and beyond to fulfill my duties". For me "Above and beyond" means that I will try to show up for work and will at least pretend to be interested.
Do you ask people their visa status during interview?
If you do not ask them about visa status, then how do you know they weren't a domestic candidate? Is it a judgement based on race/skin-color/accent?
If you do ask them this question, How do you keep that information from influencing your decision in the interview?