The Delhi High Court on Tuesday criticised Wikipedia for its "opinionated" and "non-neutral" page which referred to Asian News International (ANI) as a "propaganda tool" for the Central government..A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said Wikipedia is perceived as an encyclopaedia and it must stay neutral rather than sounding like an online blog. "Let's be honest, we all refer to Wikipedia. I recall very clearly that when children are in high school, you can look at Wikipedia and teach children about it... The word 'pedia' comes from encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia has to be very neutral. Wikipedia is doing a great service that way...If you start taking sides like this, then it becomes like any other blog," the Court remarked orally. .The bench further said that if Wikipedia says it is an intermediary, it cannot challenge a court's decision on merits. "You have already pleaded you are an intermediary. Under IT Rules, their job is only to give effect to what the court of law directs. You cannot defend it on merits. If you are an intermediary and the court directs you to take down, you cannot even argue on merits," the Court stressed. .However, the Court slightly modified the April 2 order of the single-judge directing ANI to take down the defamatory content against ANI and stop further publication of similar content. The Division Bench said that while Wikipedia will remove the defamatory content, ANI can inform the platform about similar content, if it is published again on the platform, after which Wikipedia will take action.Concerning the single-judge's direction to remove the protection status imposed on ANI's page which allegedly prevented edits on the page, the Division Bench said this direction will remain stayed. .The order has been passed on Wikipedia's appeal against the single-judge's order..Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for Wikipedia today and argued that the single-judge order is based on the wrong premise that the content about ANI was published in 2024. He argued that the ANI page has been the same since 2019 and the writers of the page are not employed or paid by Wikipedia. Sibal added that the injunction is extremely broad. Meanwhile, Advocate Sidhant Kumar represented ANI and submitted that he has no objection if the ANI page is changed back to the one that existed before February 26, 2019 (when the edits were made). Kumar said that Wikipedia has not complied with the court’s order and the provisions of the IT Rules which oblige them to take down content within 36 hours.He added that Wikipedia itself has argued that it has the power to modify content and in such a situation, it cannot claim to be an intermediary. .Wikipedia has filed an appeal against the order passed by Justice Subramonium Prasad, who found the ANI page in violation of Wikipedia's policy and observed that the content was not neutral. "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 of 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..In July 2024, the single-judge of the High Court had issued summons to Wikipedia and ordered it to disclose information about three people who made the edits to 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.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 and ordered its removal. The appeal against this order is pending in the Supreme Court..How can court be so touchy? Supreme Court on Delhi HC order to takedown ANI v Wikipedia page.[Read live-coverage here]
