Delhi High Court flags neutrality concerns over Wikipedia; says page on ANI based on opinionated editorials

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the Wikipedia page about news agency Asian News International (ANI) did not appear to have been authored from a neutral point of view [ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors.]..Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while directing Wikipedia to take down allegedly defamatory statements made on its platform about ANI.The Court noted that Wikipedia's policy states that encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, without any editorial bias. The Court questioned whether this policy was followed when it came to Wikipedia's page on ANI. "It appears that the statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff are all sourced from articles which are nothing but editorials and opinionated pages. Defendant No.1 which is following the policy to avoid stating opinions as facts and also professing it to be an encyclopedia has to also see as to whether the opinions are actually based on the source articles or not so that neutral policy of Defendant No.1 is not violated," it said. The Court added that Wikipedia cannot simply wash its hands off content uploaded on its platform by claiming that it is only an intermediary. Wikipedia has a responsibility to prevent defamation on its platform, the Court said. "Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia), therefore, cannot completely wash its hands of the contents of the article on the ground that it is only an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statement that is published on its platform," the Court said. .Wikipedia professes itself to be an encyclopedia and people at large have a tendency to accept statements made on it as gospel truth.Delhi High Court.The Court added that Wikipedia has a high responsibility for contents posted on its platform, considering it claims to be an encyclopedia and the information on it is accepted as gospel truth by its readers."Defendant No.1 (Wikipedia) professes itself to be an encyclopedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher," it said. .The Court was dealing with an interim application moved by the ANI, which has filed a suit accusing Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) of allowing defamatory edits on its page including references that the news agency acts as a "propaganda tool" for the Central government..In its April 2 ruling, the Court also found that the statements made on Wikipedia's page about ANI were contrary to the articles cited as sources. "After perusing the Articles which were being cited by Defendants No. 2 to 4 (those who made edits to the Wikipedia page on ANI) while making the impugned statements, this Court opines that the impugned statements on the Plaintiff's page are not verbatim reproduction of such articles, and these impugned statements are written in such a way which is totally contradictory to the intent with which these Articles were written and the impugned statements on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff on the Platform of Defendant No. 1 are devoid of the context of the Articles," the Court found. The Court concluded that these statements were ex-facie defamatory and tarnished ANI's professional reputation. "This Court finds that the opinion of Defendants No.2 to 4 do not represent the true picture of the articles and have been twisted by Defendants No.2 to 4," it said in the judgment. .The Court also found merit in ANI's argument that the Wikipedia articles cannot be edited by anybody else, thereby putting ANI in a disadvantage to rebut what is given in the page. .The Court in December 2024 had reserved its decision on the interim application and said it would go through the news articles that formed the basis of the alleged defamatory edits against ANI on the Wikipedia page.The High Court in July 2024 had issued summons to Wikipedia in the matter and ordered it to disclose information about three people who made the edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.After ANI complained that Wikipedia had not complied with this directive, the single-judge took strong objection to Wikipedia's conduct and issued a notice for contempt of court. Wikipedia then moved the Division Bench in appeal.The single-judge had also ordered an authorised representative of Wikipedia to be personally present in Court on October 25, when the contempt case was listed next.These single-judge directives were challenged by Wikipedia before the Division Bench where both ANI and Wikipedia reached an agreement. Under this agreement, Wikipedia agreed to serve notice on the users who made the edits, while protecting their identity. Wikipedia then served notices on the three users accused of making defamatory edits that tarnished ANI's reputation. .Pertinently, the Division Bench later also criticised Wikipedia for hosting a page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation', about the High Court case. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan (who has since been elevated to the apex court) and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ordered Wikipedia to take this page down. Wikipedia complied with the directive but also challenged it before the Supreme Court, which is slated to hear the matter today (April 4). .Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, Akshit Mago and Anshika Saxena represented ANI before the High Court.Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with advocates Nikhil Narendran, Tine Abraham, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Shivani Rawat, Thomas J Vallianeth, Aayush Marwah, Shubhangni Jain, Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Bakhshind Singh, Pranav Tomar, Jasleen Virk and Diva Saigal appeared for Wikipedia. .[Read judgment]