Premium

Govt issues notice to Wikipedia, asks why it should be treated as intermediary and not publisher

I&B Ministry points to select group of volunteers having editorial control over its content.

WikipediaWikipedia advertises itself as a free online encyclopedia where volunteers can create or edit pages on personalities, issues or various subjects. (Wikipedia advertises itself as a free online encyclopedia where volunteers can create or edit pages on personalities, issues or various subjects. (X)

IN THE wake of complaints of bias and inaccuracies in information hosted by Wikipedia, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has sent a notice to the website pointing to a select group of volunteers having editorial control over it.

The ministry has also asked Wikipedia why it should not be treated as a publisher instead of an intermediary, sources say.

The popular website — which hosts open content and is run by volunteers — is embroiled in legal cases in India over alleged inaccurate and defamatory content provided by it. Recently, news agency ANI took Wikipedia parent Wikimedia Foundation to the Delhi High Court for defamation over its page calling the agency a “propaganda tool for the incumbent government”.

Story continues below this ad

The court cautioned the Foundation during the proceedings that it would order the government to block Wikipedia in India if it did not provide details on who was/were responsible for this description.

By definition, an intermediary is meant to merely be a platform for the public to air their own views. However, sources say the notice has been sent as there is a feeling that is not the case with Wikipedia. Only a small group of editors and administrators have the final say on the nature of content that is added to any articles, they say, adding that “not everybody is able to publish their views on the website”.

On Monday, the Delhi High Court said that Wikipedia’s disclaimer that its content is based on secondary sources could not absolve it from the responsibility for what the users write on its pages, pulling it up for apparent reluctance in sharing details of users who made edits to the page at the centre of the defamation fight.

The single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the remark while hearing the ANI defamation suit. However, lawyers representing Wikipedia said their client has not claimed the content was factually correct and verified, but stated that it was added through open, editable collaboration.

Story continues below this ad

The court posted the matter for November 6 and asked Wikipedia to answer why editors of an Encyclopaedia should not make their names public.

Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has no presence in India. In 2022, then Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar called out the platform for derogatory remarks added to cricketer Arshdeep Singh’s page.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement