Wikipedia’s Neutrality Under Scrutiny: ANI’s Defamation Case and the Limits of Foreign Online Platforms

• The Delhi High Court on 6 September issued a contempt of court notice to Wikipedia, the popular and free online encyclopaedia, over withholding information about edits to an entry on news agency ANI.
• The ‘Neutral Point of View’ (NPOV) criteria on Wikipedia do not ensure that every point of view will be fairly represented in an article.
• Studies reveal that it operates more like a publisher, selecting content, compensating editors, and influencing editorial choices.”

The Delhi High Court on 6 September issued a contempt of court notice to Wikipedia, the popular and free online encyclopaedia, over withholding information about edits to an entry on news agency ANI. The court warned Wikipedia against non-compliance with Indian laws, declaring “If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India… we will ask the government to block your site.” News agency Asian News International (ANI) has moved the Delhi High Court against Wikipedia for allowing allegedly defamatory content on ANI’s wiki page.

The alleged edit referred to ANI as “the propaganda tool” of the Indian government. A Bench of Justice Navin Chawla has sought a response from Wikipedia and listed the matter for further hearing. The petitioner has sought damages to the tune of Rs 2 crore, alleging that the said content is “palpably false” and defamatory and that its reputation was being tarnished and goodwill discredited.

The petition contends that the “false and misleading content” on Wikipedia raised doubts about ANI’s credibility as a news agency. It says that the editing history of the page shows that in April, a series of edits were made reflecting the factual position, but these were “deliberately reversed” in May to cause harm to the petitioner’s reputation. Wikipedia, which started in 2001, does not produce the content for its online encyclopedia. It is a collaborative, open-source, nonprofit platform whose users contribute to the content of the website. The suit against Wikipedia, rather than the individuals who could have made the edits to the page, is intended to ensure enforcement by holding the intermediary liable.

ANI has argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media intermediary under the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000: “Any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service concerning that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, Internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”. the petitioner has also relied on Sections 79(2) and (3) of the Act, which lay down the requirements for the “safe harbour clause” to come into effect.

In July the Wikimedia Foundation released a statement on the case filed by ANI, identifying itself as a “technology host” and explaining it does not add to or edit content published on Wikipedia. This content is “determined by its global community of volunteer editors… who compile and share information on notable subjects”, the Foundation said. The court had ordered Wikipedia to reveal details about three accounts that made the edits, but ANI claimed that this has not been revealed. This was after ANI reportedly pointed out Wikipedia had not said the three individuals, also named in the case, were not editors.

The court warned Wikipedia against non-compliance with Indian laws, declaring 'If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India… we will ask government to block your site.' 

On September 6, ANI filed a contempt application in the High Court, claiming that the order had not been complied with. In its defence, Wikipedia told the court the release of the information had been delayed pending the submission of certain documents from its side, which, in turn, was delayed because Wikipedia is not based in India. The court had ordered Wikipedia to reveal details about three accounts that made the edits, but ANI claimed that this has not been revealed. This was after ANI reportedly pointed out Wikipedia had not said the three individuals, also named in the case, were not editors.

However, Justice Navin Chawla seemed unimpressed. The judge said, “It is not a question of the defendant not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia… Earlier also you took this position.” “If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India,” he said. The matter has been posted next for October, for which the court has ordered that a representative of the company be present.

The ‘Left’ face of Wikipedia

Elon Musk had once famously tweeted that it’s not the victors who write the history but the losers who have enough time to spend on Wikipedia. Elon Musk has gone on record to show his disappointment with Wikipedia’s propaganda-focused content.

‘Nobody should trust Wikipedia’, warns its co-founder Larry Sanger, who says the site is taken over by leftists who reject content that doesn’t fit their agenda. The following are a few instances that suggest the same idea

1. On one of its pages, Opindia was introduced as a fake news propagator just because it expressed contrarian views on various Hindu-related views. This claim was however backed by a vague explanation.
2. The Godhra incident of Gujrat in 2002 was a horrific crime where 27 Hindu pilgrims were burnt alive inside a train coach. The high court had punished 31 criminals and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Wikipedia however in its article states that the incident is still disputed and hasn’t mentioned the verdict in the entire article.
3. In 2020, an article about Indo-Bhutan relations was published where a map was shown in which Jammu and Kashmir were not shown as a part of India.
4. In 2021, the Wikipedia page of Prime Minister Narendra Modi was edited, where it is written that Indian democracy is in danger because of PM Modi.
5. Love Jihad or Grooming gang cases is a well-established reality. Former Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak had talked openly about how a particular community is responsible for this in the UK. The European Parliament has also spoken about this issue openly and the High Court of Kerala in 2009 ordered the state government to make a law against love jihad. Despite all this, Wikipedia states that love jihad is a conspiracy made up of right-wing Hindutva groups. On the other hand, it writes that Muslim women are trapped by Hindus and this is being done by right-wing groups.
6. In Wikipedia’s article about the movie ‘The Kashmir Files’ which shows the genocide of Hindus, it is written that the entire movie is a fictional story and no genocide took place in Kashmir. This is done despite world-renowned organisations like ICHRRF have officially accepted that a genocide was imposed on Kashmir.
7. In one of its articles, the holy slogan ‘jai shree ram’ is stated as a war cry against other communities.
8. Wikipedia also mentioned that The Noakhali riots which was a semi-organized series of murders, looting, rapes and abductions of Hindus by the Muslim community were caused by Hindus and the Muslim community as the victim.

Can Wikipedia’s Reputation be redeemed?

The “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) criteria on Wikipedia do not ensure that every point of view will be fairly represented in an article. NPOV, on the other hand, indicates that the data will only be derived from “reliable sources.” Nevertheless, this collection of trustworthy sources may be skewed because Wikipedia editors and administrators, who have a lot of power, frequently downplay or exclude right-wing or non-left sources. This stops any Wikipedia articles from citing those sources.

It is discovered that a small number of people referred to as “administrators” have absolute control due to Wikipedia’s structure. Only 435 administrators are now in active use worldwide, and they have the authority to prohibit editors, ban contributors, ban sources, and determine whether updates to articles should be made or undone. In terms of content, these few administrators have unrestricted power on Wikipedia. It is further established by reliable sources that many of these editors and administrators receive compensation from the Wikimedia Foundation in the form of funds for initiatives related to Wikimedia. As a result, Wikipedia cannot be the open-access, free-for-all model that its proponents assert. Jimmy Wales acknowledged that he serves as the last arbiter of content on Wikimedia.

ANI has argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media intermediary under the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

On analyzing with an emphasis on India in particular. It has been discovered that the Wikimedia Foundation receives millions of dollars from highly driven donor-directed money, including funding from organizations such as the Tides Foundation, Open Society Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. Additionally, Google funds projects like Abstract Wikipedia, which effectively seeks to colonize the internet, and pays millions to the Wikimedia Foundation to promote Wikipedia material. The Wikimedia Foundation has close financial ties to the covert Tides Foundation, which George Soros and others are suspected of supporting the pro-Hamas demonstrations in US universities.

Acknowledge Wikipedia as a Publisher Although Wikipedia maintains its objectivity, studies reveal that it operates more like a publisher, selecting content, compensating editors, and influencing editorial choices. If Wikimedia were granted publisher status in India, it would have to abide by Indian laws, establish offices there, and control content that affects national sovereignty. Examine Financial Transactions Closely Wikimedia supports organisations that could be detrimental to national interests by conducting financial transactions in India. The IT Act and FCRA, among other Indian laws, should be followed in these:

• For supervision purposes, the government ought to mandate that Wikimedia establish a local presence.
• Wikipedia’s Tools that incorporate editorial bias into Wikipedia material and have been financed by Wikimedia must be banned.
• A browser extension to identify bias and misinformation, especially in articles regarding India, should be developed by the government.
• The partnership between Google and Wikimedia which benefits Wikipedia at the expense of Indian media, must be examined under the Competition Act of 2002.
• Under the Competition Act, Wikipedia should be scrutinised for anti-competitive behaviour that affects media and websites in India.

_{(The views expressed are the author’s own)}

Hima Teja B