The lawsuit against Wikipedia in India is unfolding as a major legal battle with potential implications for access to unbiased information and free speech in the country. Here’s an overview of the case and what’s at stake:
Background on the Case:
Asian News International (ANI), India’s largest newswire service, has filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that operates Wikipedia, seeking 20 million rupees in damages. ANI alleges that Wikipedia published defamatory statements about it, including claims that ANI acts as a propaganda outlet for the Indian government and distributes content from unreliable sources. ANI has demanded that these claims be removed from its Wikipedia page, but the page has been placed under “extended confirmed protection,” which restricts editing to experienced volunteers.
In response to ANI’s accusations, Wikimedia has highlighted that Wikipedia content is controlled by volunteers, not the Foundation itself. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to disclose the identities of the editors who made the alleged defamatory changes, and threatened to block Wikipedia in India if it failed to comply. Wikimedia has agreed to provide the requested information in a sealed cover.
Wider Implications for Wikipedia and Free Speech:
Digital rights experts, including Mishi Choudhary and Nikhil Pahwa, warn that the case could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to more individuals and organizations suing to gain control over their Wikipedia pages or to silence criticism. The concern is that this could lead to self-censorship among Wikipedia editors, who may be deterred from writing accurate but critical content out of fear of legal repercussions. This case could, therefore, result in a loss of impartial, community-driven content, restricting the availability of reliable information for users.
Wikipedia’s Global History of Censorship:
This case adds India to a list of countries that have challenged Wikipedia’s editorial independence. Wikipedia has faced partial or full bans in countries such as China, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Russia, where governments have sought to control content perceived as politically sensitive. In each instance, Wikimedia has largely resisted, complying with fewer than ten out of 5,500 global content takedown requests, and none for the English Wikipedia.
Potential Impact on India’s Information Landscape:
If the court ultimately rules against Wikipedia, India’s access to unbiased information could suffer. As one of the few major platforms to consistently resist governmental censorship, Wikipedia has played a significant role in providing information that challenges dominant narratives. Experts caution that a restrictive judgment could undermine this role, eroding public access to diverse perspectives and a neutral account of events.
This case could reshape the relationship between online platforms, government influence, and free expression in India. Observers will be watching closely, as the final ruling could set a new precedent for internet governance and freedom of information in one of the world’s largest democracies.
