Wikipedia Faces Legal Challenge in India Over Allegedly Defamatory Content

Wikipedia is currently engaged in a significant legal dispute in India, a situation that experts suggest could influence the online encyclopedia’s operations within the nation. This conflict originates from a 20 million rupee ($237,874; £183,012) lawsuit initiated by India’s largest newswire service against the Wikimedia Foundation, the entity responsible for Wikipedia, alleging the publication of defamatory material. In its filing with the Delhi high court, Asian News International (ANI) stated that a section of its description on Wikipedia falsely labels it as “a propaganda tool for the incumbent [federal] government” and accuses it of “distributing material from fake news websites,” demanding the removal of the page. Wikipedia asserts that its website’s content is entirely managed by volunteers, and the Foundation exercises no control over it. In August, the court directed Wikipedia to reveal the identities of those who made these purportedly defamatory edits to the ANI page, threatening to shut down the website if its directives were not followed. The hearing remains ongoing, but Wikipedia has since consented to provide basic user information to the court in a sealed envelope, though the specific details are yet to be clarified. Experts consider this case crucial, as its outcome could affect public access to unbiased information on the platform. “It will tell us whether India lives in the era of the internet, where information is truthful and free for everybody to access,” states Mishi Choudhary, a technology law expert. The hearing commenced in July after ANI petitioned the court, claiming it had attempted to modify the allegedly defamatory content on Wikipedia, but its changes were rejected. The ANI page was subsequently placed under “extended confirmed protection”—a Wikipedia feature designed to prevent vandalism or abuse—which restricts editing privileges to users who have completed a specified number of prior edits. In its legal complaint, ANI sought the removal of the allegedly defamatory content. However, it has not pursued legal action against the news reports cited on the Wikipedia page. Wikipedia, in response, contended that despite being a community-driven platform, it maintains a robust fact-checking system. Wikipedia operates on a self-regulation model, allowing anyone to make edits to a page provided the information is supported by a published, authentic source and presented from a neutral perspective, meaning no new, unpublished information can be added. The website relies on volunteers who edit and verify information while preserving their anonymity. Discussions among volunteers regarding edits are publicly visible on the page. In instances of disagreement, established guidelines exist for dispute resolution. The platform also employs bots to monitor changes. During court proceedings, the Wikimedia Foundation stated that it solely provides technical infrastructure and has no direct association with the volunteers who manage the website’s content. However, this operational model came under scrutiny after a page detailing the ongoing court case appeared on Wikipedia. Last week, the court mandated its removal, citing interference with court proceedings. The Foundation has since suspended the page. Observers suggest this marks possibly the first instance of an English-language Wikipedia page being taken down following a court order. Transparency reports issued by the Foundation since 2012 indicate that out of approximately 5,500 global requests for content takedown and alteration, fewer than 10 were complied with, and none of these pertained to the English website. This action drew criticism from some digital experts, who argued that removing the page was inappropriate given that it compiled information already reported by the press on the case. Experts predict that the case’s resolution is likely to have substantial implications for the platform’s operations in India. Nikhil Pahwa, a tech journalist and digital rights expert, expresses concern that the case might encourage more individuals and brands to attempt to control their Wikipedia pages. “Many people do not like how they have been portrayed on Wikipedia. Now anyone can file a case, ask for identification of editors and the court might grant it without any preliminary determination of whether there was defamation,” he remarks. Ms Choudhary suggests the case could exert a “chilling effect” on free speech, potentially making editors hesitant to publish truthful content. She further adds that any form of self-censorship could severely impede access to impartial information on any given subject on the platform. Wikipedia is, of course, no stranger to controversy, having encountered various forms of censorship in at least 13 countries. China banned the platform in 2019, followed by Myanmar in 2021. It has also experienced conflicts with the Russian government and its courts. Moscow has blocked several pages critical of the government, and courts have imposed fines on the Wikimedia Foundation for its refusal to remove these articles. In 2023, Pakistan blocked the website for three days after it failed to remove allegedly “blasphemous content.” Wikipedia was also blocked in Turkey in April 2017 after it declined to delete articles critical of the country’s government, though Turkey’s top court lifted this ban in 2020. In India, experts note that the platform is among the few organizations that have resisted the federal government’s directives to remove content. Nevertheless, a ban could severely disrupt its operations in the country. If the verdict does not favor Wikipedia, “we as a society will suffer since we will not have access to impartial information”, Ms Choudhary warns.