Delhi High Court Criticizes Wikipedia for Bias in Asian News International Page

Neutrality and Intermediary Role

Court’s Observations

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court scolded Wikipedia for its “opinionated” page on news agency Asian News International (ANI). The court emphasized that Wikipedia should remain neutral and not sound like an online blog, as reported by Bar and Bench.

• A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta heard a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation.
• The petition challenged a single-judge order from April 2 directing Wikipedia to remove allegedly defamatory content about ANI.
• The court noted that an encyclopedia must be neutral and that Wikipedia is providing a great service by being neutral.
• If Wikipedia takes sides, it becomes like any other blog, the court observed.

Intermediary Role and Challenging Court Decisions

If Wikipedia claims to be an intermediary, it cannot challenge a court’s decision on merits, the court added.

• Under IT Rules, Wikipedia’s job is only to give effect to what the court of law directs.
• As an intermediary, Wikipedia cannot defend content on merits if the court orders its removal.

Court’s Refusal to Stay April 2 Order

The bench refused to stay the April 2 order but stayed a part of the order asking Wikipedia to remove the protection status granted to the administrators of its ANI page, as reported by The Indian Express.

• While Wikipedia will remove the defamatory content, ANI can inform the platform about similar content if published again.
• Wikipedia would have to take action again if such content appears.

April 2 Order and Defamation Suit

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content about ANI from the page in response to an interim application by the news agency seeking its removal.

• The plea was part of a Rs 2 crore defamation suit filed by the news agency.
• The suit concerns a page about ANI that says the news agency has been criticized for serving as a “propaganda tool” for the current Union government.
• ANI alleged that Wikimedia Foundation published false and defamatory content with malicious intent to tarnish its reputation.

Content Violation and Intermediary Responsibility

Prasad, in his order, said that the ANI page violated Wikipedia’s policy and added that the content was not neutral. He also said that it was written based on “editorials and opinionated pages”.

• The order stated that Wikipedia cannot evade responsibility for content on its platform by claiming to be just an intermediary.
• The platform carries “higher” responsibility because it “professes itself to be an encyclopedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on it as gospel truth”.

Hearing on Wednesday

At the hearing on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Wikipedia, told the court that the April 2 order was based on the wrong premise that the content about the news agency was published in 2024.

• The page had been the same since 2019, and the writers of the page were not employed or paid by Wikipedia.
• Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, said he would not object if the page was changed back to the one that existed before February 26, 2019.