As per the recent reports, it was stated that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has sent a notice to Wikipedia, raising concerns related to alleged bias and inaccuracies on the platform. This development emerges as part of a broader case currently being heard in the Delhi High Court, where Wikipedia faces allegations related to defamatory content on the page of Asian News International (ANI), a prominent Indian news agency.
According to a report filed from The Economic Times, the notice further questions whether Wikipedia should continue to operate as an ‘intermediary’ or be reclassified as a ‘publisher’, given the editorial control reportedly exercised by a select few.
The Delhi High Court has recently described Wikipedia’s open-editing model as ‘dangerous’, and has further voiced the concerns related to the unrestricted user-editing features which could lead to harmful or inaccurate information being published about public figures and entities.
This sentiment has been expressed in a case where ANI accused Wikipedia of hosting defamatory content, with ANI being portrayed as a ‘propaganda tool’ for the government.
The court also emphasized that open editing could be a liability if misused.
As per the notice, the I&B Ministry outlined its concerns over the editorial model of Wikipedia, which was being questioned for the extent of control held by a small group and highlighting instances of alleged bias and inaccuracies.
The ministry further inquired why Wikipedia, given its editorial influence, should not be treated as a ‘publisher’ with legal accountability rather than an ‘intermediary’. Under Indian law, intermediaries are generally shielded from liability for content generated by users, while publishers face more stringent accountability.
It was further reported that the platform has declined to reveal the identities of the users who made the alleged edits on ANI’s page, despite repeated requests from the Delhi High Court.
Legal representatives for Wikipedia defended its editing model, noting that users are bound by policies mandating verifiable content. However, the lack of transparency around user identities in cases of misinformation remains a point of contention.
